sum_squares

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 tool calculates a sum of squares, implying a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for non-numeric strings in the input array), performance characteristics, or output format. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. The domain/category tag is extraneous but does not significantly detract. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick scanning.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on input semantics (e.g., string-to-number conversion), error conditions, and output format (e.g., numeric result type). For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 'numbers in a list', which aligns with the 'numbers' parameter in the schema, but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already shows (an array of strings). It does not explain what the strings represent (e.g., numeric values), expected format, constraints, or examples, leaving parameters poorly documented.

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 squares of numbers in a list.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('sum of squares'), and input type ('numbers in a list'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'sum_digit_powers', 'sum_of_two_squares'), which are also summation tools but with different mathematical operations.

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 includes a domain/category tag ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: general'), but this is too vague to help an agent choose between similar sibling tools like 'sum_digit_powers' or 'sum_of_two_squares'. 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.