sign

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 discloses the return values (1, -1, 0) and domain/category, which is useful, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., handling of zero, negative zero, or non-numeric inputs), error behavior, or performance considerations. It adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and return values, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place 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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic use. It covers purpose and return values, though it could benefit from mentioning edge cases or examples. The simplicity of the tool makes the description largely adequate.

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, but the description compensates by implying the parameter 'x' is a number for sign determination. Since there is only one parameter, the description adequately conveys its purpose without needing detailed syntax, earning a high score for simplicity.

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 ('Determine') and resource ('sign of a number'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the return values (1, -1, or 0). It also includes domain/category context, making it highly specific.

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 implies usage for arithmetic sign determination but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for numeric classification vs. other mathematical operations). No exclusions or specific contexts are provided, leaving usage somewhat open-ended.

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