divide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the error behavior for division by zero, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on other aspects like input validation for non-numeric values, performance characteristics, or return format, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (simple arithmetic), 2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core operation and a key error case, but could improve by mentioning the output type or handling of non-integer results to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that the parameters are 'two numbers' and the semantic role (dividend and divisor implied), which clarifies beyond the schema's generic 'A' and 'B' titles. However, it does not specify the order of parameters (e.g., a divided by b) or handle for edge cases like floating-point division.

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 specific action ('Divide two numbers') and the resource (numbers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add, subtract, multiply, and power by specifying the division operation. It's precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for usage by mentioning the error condition ('Raises an error if dividing by zero'), which implicitly guides when not to use it (i.e., avoid division by zero). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like using 'multiply' with reciprocals or mention specific scenarios for choosing division over other operations.

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