greet_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose that the operation is 'Safe, idempotent formatting' — useful behavioral context for a mutation-free utility. It stops short of describing output shape, but the tool is trivially side-effect-free, so the gap is minor.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed immediately by routing guidance. There is slight redundancy between 'personalized greeting message' and 'customized salutations', but no meaningful waste.

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 simple two-parameter, single-required utility with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, exclusions, tone options, and safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'name' and 'style' including the default and enum-like values. The description's mention of 'formal or casual tone' merely echoes the schema, adding no syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generates a personalized greeting message for a user') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'format_text'. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('produce customized salutations in formal or casual tone when interacting with humans') and an explicit when-not with the named alternative ('Do not use for raw text formatting or casing changes (use format_text instead)'). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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