log

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 return value ('Returns log_base(x)') but lacks behavioral details such as error handling for invalid inputs (e.g., non-positive numbers), precision, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of annotations.

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, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and return value. There is no wasted text, 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 complexity (mathematical function with two parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, error conditions, and usage context, making it inadequate for full understanding without external knowledge.

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, but the description adds meaning by naming the parameters ('x' and 'base') and explaining their roles in 'log_base(x)'. However, it does not provide details on constraints (e.g., base > 0, base ≠ 1, x > 0) or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 with specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('logarithm of a number to a specified base'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the mathematical operation (logarithm) rather than other arithmetic functions like 'abs_value' or 'add'.

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 does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or compare it to sibling tools like 'ln' or 'log10' for natural or base-10 logarithms.

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