greeting

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's output type (a friendly greeting) and its non-destructive nature implicitly. However, it doesn't specify the exact format or content of the greeting, which is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity. No wasted words, and the action is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-side-effect utility, the description is complete enough. An output schema exists, so return values are presumably structured there. The only minor gap is not specifying the greeting's exact wording, but that is unlikely to impede correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('a friendly greeting'), which is sufficient for a zero-parameter utility tool. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but none of the listed siblings appear to overlap with greeting functionality, so the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a simple, unconditional use case: when a friendly greeting is needed. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the tool's trivial nature and lack of overlapping siblings, the implied usage is adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.