ceiling

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the mathematical behavior ('Rounds a number up to the nearest integer'), which is the core behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention edge cases (e.g., handling of negative numbers, non-numeric inputs, or overflow), which would be helpful additional context.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this simple mathematical function.

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 mathematical operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does. However, it doesn't specify the return value format (e.g., that it returns an integer), which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. The completeness is good but not perfect.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'number' already documented as 'The number to round up'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Rounds a number up') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'floor' (which rounds down) and 'round' (which rounds to nearest). It precisely identifies both the verb ('Rounds up') and the resource ('a number').

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 usage context through the mathematical operation name 'ceiling', which suggests when to use this versus alternatives like 'floor' or 'round'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use scenarios or directly name alternatives, leaving some interpretation to the agent.

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