round_number

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 behavioral details such as rounding rules (e.g., ties to even, away from zero), handling of negative numbers or decimals, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function. The parenthetical domain and category add minimal but relevant context without waste, making it efficiently structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (rounding rules, error handling), parameter specifics, and output information, making it inadequate for reliable agent use without additional inference or trial.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a number' and 'specified number of decimal places', which maps to parameters 'x' and 'decimals', adding basic meaning. However, it does not detail constraints (e.g., 'decimals' must be non-negative), defaults (schema shows 'decimals' defaults to 0), or examples, leaving gaps in parameter 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 with a specific verb ('Round') and resource ('a number'), and specifies the operation ('to a specified number of decimal places'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ceil', 'floor', 'truncate', or 'mround' which also perform rounding-related operations, preventing a perfect score.

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 a domain ('arithmetic') and category ('core'), but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with sibling tools like 'ceil' or 'floor', leaving usage context implied at best.

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