infinity

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 describes what the tool returns ('positive infinity') and its mathematical meaning, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's deterministic, has side effects, or requires specific inputs (though parameters are none). It adequately explains the output concept but lacks operational details like error conditions or performance characteristics.

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: the first three words ('Get positive infinity') state the core purpose, followed by clarifying context. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The parenthetical domain/category is brief and informative.

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 (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. It explains what 'positive infinity' means mathematically, but doesn't cover output format (e.g., numeric representation) or potential edge cases. For a basic constant-fetching tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the output. No parameter information is missing or needed, making this sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 positive infinity' with additional context about its representation ('unbounded growth or division by zero limit'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'positive infinity' (e.g., vs. 'nan' or 'is_infinite'), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings. The domain/category tags are helpful but not essential to the core purpose.

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 ('general'), but gives no explicit when/when-not instructions, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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