clamp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'ensures the value stays within specified limits,' which implies a deterministic, non-destructive operation, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid inputs), performance, or output format. Without annotations, this is a significant gap for a tool that modifies numeric values, warranting a low score.

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 front-loaded and highly efficient: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and outcome, with no wasted words. The parenthetical domain and category add minimal but relevant context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the basic operation but misses behavioral details like error handling or output specifics. Without annotations or output schema, it should provide more context for safe use, but it meets the baseline for a simple arithmetic tool.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the parameters' roles: 'value' to clamp, and 'min_val' and 'max_val' as bounds. It adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions, clarifying the clamping logic. However, it does not detail constraints (e.g., min_val <= max_val) or examples, preventing a perfect score.

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: 'Clamp a value between a minimum and maximum bound. Ensures the value stays within specified limits.' It specifies the verb ('clamp'), resource ('value'), and outcome ('within specified limits'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'between' or 'in_range', which might have similar numeric range-checking functions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. It mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('comparison'), but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if it handles edge cases like min_val > max_val or compare to siblings like 'between' or 'in_range', leaving usage context implied at best.

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