modulr_sym

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or computational complexity. The agent gets no warning about potential issues.

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 short sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It does not include essential details beyond the bare operation, failing to earn its place as a helpful guide.

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 modular symbols and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns or any nuances, making it inadequate for proper invocation.

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 input schema includes descriptions for all three parameters (g: weight, s: complex number, precision: optional precision), so coverage is 100%. The main description adds no further meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states the verb 'compute' and the resource 'modular symbol', which gives a basic purpose but lacks context to differentiate from siblings like 'cusp_form' or 'theta'. It is not a tautology but is vague.

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 over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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