abs_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details such as error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance characteristics, or output format. The description is minimal and doesn't disclose operational traits beyond the basic function.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core function in the first sentence. The additional domain/category information is brief and relevant, with no wasted words, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output (e.g., returns a number) and error cases, which could be helpful for an agent despite the simplicity.

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 mentions 'a number' which aligns with the single parameter 'x' of type number in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying the parameter's purpose, though it doesn't specify constraints like integer vs. float or handling of special values (e.g., NaN).

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's purpose with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('absolute value of a number'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on absolute value calculation rather than other arithmetic or mathematical functions listed.

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 through the domain and category tags ('arithmetic, core'), suggesting it's for basic mathematical operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to calculate absolute value instead of using other arithmetic tools like 'negate' or 'sign').

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