ellmul

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It minimally states the operation but omits important behavioral traits: what happens when P is null? What is the return value? Are there side effects? The description is too vague for a complex mathematical operation.

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, very concise. However, given the complexity of the operation, it could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose, so not a 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?

For a tool performing elliptic curve scalar multiplication, with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the result type, that P must be on E, or handling of special cases (e.g., n=0, negative n). Sibling tools indicate a math library context, but more context 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are minimal and confusing. 'Point (optional, if E is a point)' is ambiguous and doesn't clarify the relationship between E and P. The description doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb 'Multiply' and resource 'a point on an elliptic curve', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like elladd, ellap, etc.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions. For example, it doesn't mention that P must be on curve E or that n must be integer beyond schema.

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