power

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the mathematical operation but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like handling of negative bases, fractional exponents, overflow/underflow, precision limitations, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic operation.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses efficient mathematical notation (a^b) to convey the operation compactly.

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 mathematical nature and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic operation adequately. However, for a mathematical function with potential edge cases (negative bases, large exponents, etc.) and no annotations, it should ideally mention some behavioral constraints. The output schema likely handles return values, but the description could better address operational boundaries.

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 adds meaningful semantics by explaining that parameter 'a' is the base and 'b' is the exponent (a^b), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'A' and 'B' titles. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, this provides essential context about what each parameter represents in the mathematical operation.

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 mathematical operation ('Raise a number to the power of another number') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add, subtract, multiply, and divide by specifying exponentiation. It uses precise terminology (a^b) that unambiguously defines the tool's function.

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 versus alternatives like log (which might be used for inverse operations) or other mathematical functions. It simply states what the tool does without any context about appropriate use cases or comparisons to sibling tools.

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