multiply_in_base

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation ('Multiply') but does not describe key behaviors: whether it handles overflow, error conditions (e.g., invalid base or number formats), output format (e.g., string or number), or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic operation.

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: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by a brief domain/category note. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (arithmetic operation in arbitrary bases), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address parameter semantics, error handling, output format, or usage context. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured documentation, the description fails to provide sufficient context for reliable use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters (num1, num2, base) are documented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters represent (e.g., that num1 and num2 are strings representing numbers in the given base, and base is an integer like 2, 8, 10, 16). Without this, the parameters are effectively undocumented, making it difficult to use the tool correctly.

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: 'Multiply two numbers in a specified base.' It includes a specific verb ('Multiply'), resource ('two numbers'), and context ('in a specified base'), making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'multiply' (which likely operates in decimal/base-10 by default), so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, constraints (e.g., valid base ranges), or comparisons to siblings like 'multiply' or 'add_in_base'. Without this, users must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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