truncate

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 operation ('truncate') and direction ('towards zero'), which implies a deterministic, non-destructive mathematical function. However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., negative numbers, non-numeric inputs) or performance characteristics.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Truncate a number towards zero') and appends only essential domain/category tags. Every part earns its place.

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?

For a simple mathematical tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on return values or error handling. Given the low complexity, it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 description does not mention the parameter 'x', but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, it compensates by clearly explaining what the tool does to the input ('truncate a number towards zero'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 specific verb ('truncate') and resource ('a number'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'towards zero (remove decimal part)'—unlike tools like 'floor' or 'ceil' that round differently. The domain/category tags further clarify its mathematical context.

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 truncating numbers toward zero, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'floor', 'ceil', or 'round_number' among siblings. However, the phrase 'towards zero' provides clear context for its rounding behavior.

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