digit_sort

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the sorting behavior but doesn't disclose important details: how negative numbers or zero are handled, whether non-integer inputs are accepted, what happens with leading zeros, or the return format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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—one sentence plus domain/category tags. Every word contributes: the first sentence states the core functionality, and the parenthetical adds context. No wasted words, though it could be argued it's too brief given the lack of annotations.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., integer or string?), edge cases, or error handling. For a tool with digital manipulation, more context is needed for reliable use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions both parameters implicitly ('number' for 'n', 'ascending or descending order' for 'descending'), but doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., valid ranges for 'n', that 'descending' defaults to false). The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully document the two parameters.

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: 'Sort the digits of a number in ascending or descending order.' It specifies the verb ('sort'), resource ('digits of a number'), and direction options. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sort_numbers' or 'digit_reversal' beyond the domain/category tags.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions domain/category ('arithmetic, digital_operations'), but this doesn't help choose between similar tools like 'sort_numbers' (which sorts lists of numbers) or 'digit_reversal' (which reverses digit order). No prerequisites, constraints, or explicit alternatives are stated.

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