format_fraction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: conversion of simple and complex fractions, handling of pre-formatted unicode, whitespace stripping, and no server connectivity requirement. However, it does not mention error handling, performance limits, or output format details, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. It starts with the core purpose, provides examples, handles edge cases, and adds operational context (no server connectivity, testing use) efficiently in a few concise sentences without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors, but lacks details on error handling, output format, or performance considerations. With no output schema, some information about return values would be beneficial, though not strictly required.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'fraction' with its type and format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing examples ('1/4', ' 31 / 200 ') and mentioning whitespace stripping, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics significantly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('format', 'converts') and resources ('fraction string to unicode fraction characters'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_recipe, search_recipes, and update_recipe. It provides concrete examples ('1/4' to '¼') and handles edge cases like already-formatted fractions and whitespace stripping.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('format a fraction string to unicode fraction characters') and mentions it can handle already-formatted fractions, but does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives to sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with other tools.

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