allocatemem

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

The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits beyond the basic mutation. It does not explain side effects (e.g., same session, memory reallocation), permissions needed, or that setting size=0 doubles the current stack size (only in schema). Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden but is insufficient.

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 a single sentence of 5 words, with no wasted language. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded. However, this extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, but for conciseness dimension, it earns full marks.

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 simplicity (2 params, optional), the description might be minimally sufficient, but it fails to provide context: what happens when size > sizemax? Is the change temporary or permanent? How does it relate to sibling query tools? Output schema exists but is not described. The agent needs more to use this correctly.

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% with parameter descriptions explaining defaults (0 means double current or keep max). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Thus, 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 verb 'Change' and resource 'PARI stack size'. It is specific enough to convey the core action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'stacksize' and 'stacksizemax', which likely return current values rather than change them. A more precise verb like 'Allocate' or 'Set' would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, common usage scenarios, or conditions under which it should be avoided. The agent has no information to decide between this tool and similar ones (e.g., 'stacksize' for querying).

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