is_power_of_two

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's function but does not disclose behavioral traits such as input constraints (e.g., handling of negative numbers, zero, or large integers), performance characteristics, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage, and the domain/category note is brief and relevant.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal. It lacks details on behavior, edge cases, or output format (e.g., boolean result), which are necessary for an agent to use it correctly. While the tool is straightforward, the description does not provide enough context for reliable invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with a single parameter 'n' of type integer. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'n' is the number to check. Since schema coverage is low, the description does not compensate by explaining constraints or examples, but the tool is simple with only one parameter, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check if a number is a power of two') with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a number'), and includes domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nth_power_of_two' or 'powers_of_two', which are related but distinct operations.

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 a domain and category ('arithmetic, basic_sequences'), but this is too vague to help an agent choose between this and sibling tools like 'is_perfect_square' or 'is_triangular_number' for number property checks.

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