Rounds a number down to the nearest integer, returning the largest integer less than or equal to the input.
Rounds a number down to the nearest integer. For several operations or chained steps in one call, use batch_calc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | The number to round down |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. For a pure, side-effect-free math function this is mostly self-evident, but it says nothing about edge behavior such as negatives (floor(-1.5) = -2) or non-numeric input handling.
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?
Two short sentences, the core operation front-loaded, with the batch hint as a trailing clause. No wasted words.
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?
A one-parameter pure function with a fully described schema needs little more than this. The only gap is behavioral edge cases, which are minor for a deterministic rounding primitive.
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 100% and the single parameter ('The number to round down') is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('rounds down') and resource ('a number') with the resulting type made explicit ('to the nearest integer'). That is enough to separate it from ceiling and round, though it never names those siblings as contrast.
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?
Explicitly routes multi-step work to batch_calc, which is a real alternative-selection cue. It stops short of saying when to pick this over ceiling/round for single values, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.