greet_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, and is subject to rate limiting (600 calls/minute) and timeout (30s). However, it contradicts the input schema by mentioning a 'name' parameter that does not exist, which undermines reliability.

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 three concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and usage. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy or filler.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, safety, and constraints. However, the misleading claim about a 'name' parameter reduces completeness and trustworthiness.

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 zero parameters, but the description claims a 'name' parameter defaults to 'World'. This is misleading and adds no value beyond the schema; it introduces confusion about the tool's actual interface.

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 greets a user by name and returns a personalized greeting, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also mentions verifying server connectivity and welcoming, further clarifying the purpose. The sibling tools (generate_report, get_config, etc.) are unrelated, so differentiation is clear.

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 explicitly states 'Use this tool to verify server connectivity or welcome a user,' providing clear context for when to use it. It also mentions demo server constraints, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, though the sibling tools are clearly different.

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