greet_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Greet someone by name' and does not mention whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects like logging. For a simple greeting tool, it likely has no side effects, but that is not stated.

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 a single, short sentence that conveys the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 simplicity, the description provides basic purpose but omits details about the output (e.g., does it return a string? print to console?). Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at the return value or effect. Still, the tool is minimal enough that an AI agent might infer the behavior from the name.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% (the 'name' parameter has no description in the schema). The description 'Greet someone by name' adds meaning by indicating that the 'name' parameter is the person's name to include in the greeting. This compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Greet someone by name' clearly states the action (greet) and the resource (someone identified by name). It is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which are system, network, or shell utilities.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are all in different domains (device, shell, network, etc.), so the intended use is implied. Still, a brief note on context (e.g., 'Use to send a friendly greeting') would improve clarity.

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