format_format_percent

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

The description discloses the key behavior of multiplying ratios (|v| < 1) by 100, which is important for correct usage. However, it lacks details on handling values greater than 1, negative values, or the effect of the 'decimals' and 'include_sign' parameters. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 concise, consisting of one sentence and an example. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and example, but could benefit from a more structured breakdown of parameters.

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 has three parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an assumed output schema, the description is too brief to fully enable correct invocation. Missing critical details about optional parameters and output format.

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 description does not explain the purpose or allowed values of the 'decimals' or 'include_sign' parameters. The example implies 'decimals' might control the number of decimal places, but it is not explicit. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess.

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 formats a number as a percent, with an example (0.87 → '87.0%') and explains the scaling behavior for ratios. It distinguishes itself from other format tools within the sibling group by specifying percent formatting.

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 versus alternative formatting tools like format_format_number. It does not mention any preconditions or scenarios where this tool is particularly appropriate or inappropriate.

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