int_widths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It appropriately discloses that the tool flags values beyond 2^53 as unable to round-trip through JS numbers or JSON floats, and that it shows wrapped values when widths do not hold. This is helpful, though it does not detail other side effects or output formatting.

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 sentences with a concrete example, front-loaded with the core purpose and a precise detail about the 2^53 threshold. 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?

Given the tool's complexity is moderate (single parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate details about the tool's behavior, especially the wrap and float limitation. However, it does not describe the output structure or how to interpret results beyond the wrap mention, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter, the description compensates with an example that clarifies the expected input type (e.g., int_widths(3000000000)) and purpose. However, it does not fully specify constraints like range limits or whether non-integer input is allowed, which could be inferred from the schema but is not described.

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 determines which integer widths hold a given number and reports wrapped values, with a specific example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like float_repr or bit_analysis by focusing on integer width range checks and wrap behavior.

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 its usage for checking integer width suitability and JS/JSON float round-tripping limitations, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the specialized purpose, some context is provided but exclusion guidance is absent.

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