floor

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 mathematical behavior but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., handling of negative numbers, non-integer inputs, or special values like NaN/infinity), error handling, or performance considerations. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, delivering the core functionality in a single, efficient sentence. The parenthetical domain and category add minimal but relevant metadata without redundancy, making every word earn its place.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the basic operation but lacks details on behavioral traits, edge cases, or output format, which could hinder an agent's correct invocation in non-standard scenarios.

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 adds meaningful context for the parameter 'x' by defining it as 'a number' and explaining the floor operation in relation to it. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates by clarifying the parameter's role, though it could specify accepted number types (e.g., integer, float) more precisely.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with a specific mathematical operation: 'Return the floor of a number (largest integer less than or equal to x).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'ceil' or 'round_number' by specifying the exact mathematical function, avoiding tautology or vagueness.

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. While it mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('core'), it does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with similar tools (e.g., 'ceil', 'truncate', 'round_number'), leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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