modulo

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 basic operation but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., division by zero, negative numbers), error handling, or performance characteristics. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation (division remainder) without safety disclosures.

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 every word contributing value: it defines the operation, provides the return format, and adds domain/category context in a single efficient sentence, with no wasted information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the basic operation but omits critical details like return value format, error conditions, and behavioral nuances, which are essential for safe and correct tool invocation in an arithmetic context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by naming parameters 'a' and 'b' and explaining they are used in 'a % b.' However, it does not specify expected types (e.g., integers vs. floats) or constraints beyond what the schema implies, leaving gaps in semantic 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 specific operation: 'Calculate the modulo (remainder) of division. Returns a % b.' It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'remainder' by specifying the mathematical notation (a % b) and providing domain/category context, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 for arithmetic modulo operations by stating 'Domain: arithmetic, Category: core,' which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'remainder' or 'fmod' among siblings, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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