math_ratio_calculator

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions behavioral modes (simplify, solve, etc.) but does not disclose return format, side effects, or state changes. The reference to describe_tool suggests additional docs, but the description itself is incomplete.

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 brief (two sentences), front-loading the core operations. The directive to use describe_tool adds a useful pointer without being overly verbose. One minor deduction for the sentence not being essential for basic understanding.

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?

The description covers the main functionality but lacks details about output format and parameter semantics. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, there is room for more context to ensure correct tool 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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description hints at possible operations ('simplify', 'solve', etc.) and ratio format (A:B:C) but does not explicitly map to the 'operation' parameter values or define how 'parts' should be structured for each operation. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 as a multi-mode ratio calculator, listing specific operations (simplify, solve proportions, scale, split, convert ratios to percentages). This distinctly separates it from sibling math tools.

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 ratio calculations through its listed operations, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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