greet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Greet') but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally—e.g., whether it returns a message, logs the greeting, or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence: 'Greet a person by name'. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects or usage context, which are needed since annotations are absent. The output schema may cover return values, but the description should still provide more context for effective use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is a 'name' for greeting, but it doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema coverage is low, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Greet') and resource ('a person by name'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add' or 'multiply', which have completely different functions, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation but could be more specific about what 'greet' entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for formal or informal greetings, or if it should be used in specific scenarios. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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