ceil

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key edge-case behaviors: accepts string numbers, does not support commas/formatting, and returns integers unchanged. This exceeds basic transparency, though it does not cover invalid input or non-numeric strings.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds value—covering the basic operation, string support, formatting limitations, and integer handling. No waste.

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 simple math tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operation, input variants, and a key limitation. It lacks explicit error behavior for non-numeric inputs, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this complexity level.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the input type ('a number') and clarifying that string numbers are supported, which is useful beyond the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('rounds') and resource ('a number up to the nearest integer'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'floor' and 'round'. It also specifies behavior with strings and integers, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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 implies use when rounding up is needed, and notes support for string numbers without formatting. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (floor, round) or state when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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