euler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what the tool returns, default behavior for precision, or side effects. The single line is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond its core function.

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 extremely concise at only two words. However, it is arguably too minimal; while front-loaded and lacking waste, it could provide slightly more context without harming conciseness. Still, it earns a 4 for avoiding unnecessary content.

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 complexity (1 optional parameter, no annotations), the description should at least hint at the precision parameter's effect or mention the return type. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden for return value explanation, but overall context remains incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100% as the only parameter 'precision' is described in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate according to guidelines.

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 'Get Euler's constant' clearly states the verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pi' or 'Catalan' by specifying which mathematical constant is being retrieved.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain any context or prerequisites. The agent receives no help in deciding between euler and other constant retrieval tools or understanding the optional precision parameter.

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