exp

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 the tool calculates and returns e^x, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., for large inputs), precision, or computational behavior. The domain/category hint adds some context but is vague.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence directly states the tool's function, followed by clarifying details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 'x' as the input but doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema provides (type: number). With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming the parameter, but doesn't explain its meaning (e.g., exponent value) or constraints.

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: 'Calculate e raised to the power of x. Returns e^x, the exponential function.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('e^x'), and output, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'exp_series' or 'exponential_pdf' beyond the domain/category note.

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 minimal guidance with 'Domain: arithmetic, Category: general', which implies context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'exp_series' or 'exponential_pdf'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are given.

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