next_palindrome

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 mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('digital_operations'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as performance characteristics (e.g., computational complexity for large n), error handling (e.g., invalid inputs), or output format (e.g., integer or string). The base parameter is hinted at but not explained behaviorally.

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: the first sentence states the core functionality, and the parenthetical adds domain context without redundancy. Every word earns its place, with no wasted sentences or vague phrasing.

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 with two parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter details, behavioral aspects, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'n' and implies 'base' via the domain note, but does not explain parameter semantics: what 'n' represents (e.g., integer input), what 'base' does (e.g., numeral system for palindrome checking), valid ranges, or default behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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: 'Find the next palindromic number greater than n.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('palindromic number'), and condition ('greater than n'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'is_palindromic_number' or 'palindromic_numbers', which check or list palindromes, rather than finding the next one.

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 minimal guidance: it implies usage when you need the next palindrome after a given number. It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'is_palindromic_number' for verification, 'palindromic_numbers' for listing), nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or edge cases (e.g., handling negative numbers or different bases).

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