log10e

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 effectively discloses that this is a constant-returning tool with no inputs, as indicated by 'Get log₁₀(e) ≈ 0.43429.' and the empty input schema. It adds context about its domain (arithmetic) and category (general), which helps the agent understand its scope. However, it doesn't mention error handling or performance, though these are less critical for a simple constant 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 highly concise and front-loaded: it immediately states the tool's output and purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in parentheses. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, provides the approximate return value, and adds domain/category context. For a constant-returning mathematical tool, this is sufficient and well-rounded, with no missing elements that would hinder 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. It compensates by explaining the output value and its significance, which is valuable for the agent's 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: 'Get log₁₀(e) ≈ 0.43429. Common logarithm of e, conversion factor for base 10 logarithms.' It specifies the exact mathematical operation (log base 10 of e), provides the approximate value, and explains its utility as a conversion factor. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'log10' (general log base 10) or 'ln' (natural log).

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 implies usage through its explanation of the conversion factor role, suggesting it's for mathematical calculations involving base 10 logarithms. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'log10' or 'ln', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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