elllog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the operation without disclosing behavior when no logarithm exists, potential error conditions, or return format. The output schema is not described.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded. It is efficient but lacks additional useful information that could be included without bloat, so not a perfect 5.

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 complexity of discrete logarithm computation (potential for non-existence, large computation), the description is too minimal. With an output schema present, return details could have been briefly noted. The description does not cover common behavioral contexts.

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 each parameter having a description (Elliptic curve structure, Base point, Point). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 computes discrete logarithms on elliptic curves, using a specific verb 'compute' and resource 'discrete logarithm of a point on an elliptic curve'. This distinguishes it from sibling elliptic curve tools like elladd or ellap.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., point must be on the curve) or conditions for correct usage. The description is purely descriptive.

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