negate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation without behavioral details. It doesn't cover error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance, or output format, leaving gaps for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 the core purpose stated in the first clause and additional context (domain/category) efficiently appended. Every word serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral traits, which are essential even for basic tools to ensure correct usage by an 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain the parameter 'x' beyond implying it's a number. No details on valid ranges, special cases (e.g., zero, infinity), or examples are provided, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('negate a number') and the outcome ('return its additive inverse'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'abs_value' or 'sign' by focusing on mathematical negation rather than absolute value or sign extraction. The domain/category tags further contextualize it within arithmetic operations.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for arithmetic negation, it doesn't mention scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'multiply' with -1) might be preferable or any prerequisites for use.

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