power

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 handling integer and fractional exponents, which is useful, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for negative bases with fractional exponents), performance characteristics, or output format. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool (raising to a power implies computation).

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 purpose, and the second adds relevant context. There is no wasted verbiage, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 complexity (a mathematical operation with potential edge cases), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not address error conditions, return values, or limitations, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation in varied contexts.

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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly clarifies that 'base' and 'exponent' are numbers and can be integer or fractional, adding some semantic value. However, it does not explain parameter constraints (e.g., domain restrictions) or provide examples, leaving gaps in 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 tool's purpose: 'Raise a number to a power.' It specifies the verb ('raise') and resource ('a number'), and adds useful context about handling integer and fractional exponents. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'exp' (exponential function) or 'power_series', which could cause confusion in selection.

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 mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('core'), but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'exp' or 'mod_power'. This leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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