sum_product

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 calculation but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify input format (e.g., how arrays are represented as strings), error handling (e.g., for mismatched array lengths), output format, or computational constraints. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds domain/category context but is somewhat redundant. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 (multi-array operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address input formatting, output structure, error cases, or usage examples. For a tool with one parameter but unclear semantics, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 'multiple arrays' but doesn't explain the 'arrays' parameter's semantics: what the strings represent (e.g., comma-separated numbers), minimum number of arrays required, or how corresponding elements are aligned. The description adds little beyond the schema's structure, leaving key details undocumented.

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: 'Calculate the sum of products of corresponding elements in multiple arrays.' It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('sum of products'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dot_product' or 'element_wise_multiply' by focusing on a multi-array operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar siblings beyond the domain/category note.

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 ('general'), but this is too vague to help an agent choose between this and siblings like 'dot_product' (for two arrays) or 'element_wise_multiply' (for element-wise multiplication without summation). No explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives are given.

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