vonmises_random

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by mentioning elicitation for kappa, but it's vague. It does not explain how elicitation works or what happens when called, leaving uncertainty about the required kappa parameter.

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 at two sentences, with the main purpose upfront. The second sentence adds useful but non-essential context, though it could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to clarify how the elicitation process works for the required kappa parameter. This omission makes the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly, as the agent might assume only mu is needed.

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 100% for mu, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the elicitation for kappa, which is not a parameter. Baseline 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 it generates a random number from the von Mises distribution, with a specific verb and resource. However, the mention of elicitation for kappa (κ), which is not in the input schema, could confuse the purpose. The tool differentiates from siblings like generate_password or greet.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description does not provide context or exclusions.

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