log2e

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 the tool as a constant retrieval ('Get log₂(e)'), implying it's a read-only, deterministic operation without side effects. However, it doesn't detail behavioral aspects like error handling, precision, or performance, which are relevant for a mathematical 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 brief context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool returns and its mathematical context. However, it could be more complete by specifying the return type or precision, though this is minor for a constant tool.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on the tool's output and purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by explaining the constant value.

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: 'Get log₂(e) ≈ 1.44270. Logarithm base 2 of e, conversion factor for binary logarithms.' It specifies the exact mathematical operation (log base 2 of e), provides the approximate numerical value, and explains its use as a conversion factor, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like log2 or log10e.

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 includes context with 'Domain: arithmetic, Category: general,' which implies when to use it—for arithmetic calculations involving binary logarithms. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using log2 for other bases), so it lacks full comparative guidance.

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