welcome_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, security requirements, or return behavior. 'Welcome user' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, a write operation, or what happens when called.

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 short and free of extraneous words, but this brevity stems from under-specification rather than careful pruning. It omits essential behavioral context, so it does not achieve the standard of 'every sentence earns its place'.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description must provide the full context of what 'welcome' entails. The description fails to explain the effect or outcome of calling the tool, leaving a significant gap in the agent's understanding.

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 single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema with type, length constraints, and a clear description ('The name of the user to welcome'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to add parameter details, and the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Welcome user' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'welcome_user' with no additional detail about what the operation involves (e.g., sending an email, displaying a message). It names the action and object but adds no specificity, making it a tautology.

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, what conditions must be met, or how it differs from alternatives. With no sibling tools listed, there is no contrast to draw, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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