euler_gamma

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 'Get[s]' the constant, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it requires computation, has performance characteristics, or returns a specific format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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 highly concise and well-structured: it states the purpose upfront ('Get the Euler-Mascheroni constant γ ≈ 0.57722.'), adds context with the mathematical definition, and includes domain/category tags efficiently. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and provides mathematical context, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., computation method, error handling) and return format. This is the minimum viable for such a tool, but more completeness would be beneficial.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the constant itself. It adds value by providing the constant's approximate value and mathematical definition, which compensates for the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is suitable for zero-parameter tools.

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: 'Get the Euler-Mascheroni constant γ ≈ 0.57722.' It specifies the exact mathematical constant being retrieved and provides its approximate value. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compute_euler_gamma_harmonic' or 'constant_relationships', which might offer related functionality, preventing 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 constant's mathematical definition ('Limit of harmonic series minus natural logarithm') and domain/category tags, but these do not help an AI agent choose between this and sibling tools like 'compute_euler_gamma_harmonic' or 'constant_relationships'. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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