geometry.vector_dot

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds the substantive traits: the result is an exact sum with no rounding, inputs must be non-empty and equal length, and mismatched lengths raise an error. That failure-mode disclosure is real added value beyond 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?

Four short sentences: operation, input contract, error condition, sibling routing — front-loaded and free of padding. Nothing repeats what annotations already say.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers arithmetic semantics, input constraints, and the failure case. For a two-parameter pure-computation tool this is sufficient to call correctly.

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 carry the parameter burden, and it does: both a and b are non-empty lists of Decimal strings that must be the same length. It does not specify accepted string syntax (exponent notation, separators), which is the only remaining ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('두 벡터의 내적') and even gives the formula Σ a_i * b_i plus the Decimal arithmetic contract. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling geometry.vector_cross, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (vector_cross) and the condition that selects it (필요한 것이 3D 직교 방향일 때). Lacks guidance relative to other siblings like vector_norm or matrix_multiply, but the primary confusion case is covered.

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