coding_theory_operation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the high-level purpose and does not describe side effects, state changes, safety, return format, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a computation tool.

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 concise, a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the domain label and clearly states the primary actions. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 tool has only two parameters, both well-documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks context about how the code constructor examples map to actual usage, possible limitations, or integration with the Sage session mentioned in sibling tool names. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for more contextual detail.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including examples for code_type and enumerated values for operation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already handles this well, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function with a specific verb ('construct') and resource ('error-correcting codes'), and mentions computing properties. It is unique among siblings, which include other math operations but no other coding theory tool, so it is well-differentiated.

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 'Coding theory: construct error-correcting codes and compute properties' gives a domain label but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not name sibling tools or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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