pi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read-only operation without side effects. The transparency is adequate for a simple constant retrieval, though no details about computational cost or permissions are needed.

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 with a single sentence that contains no filler. It is well front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 (a constant with one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core functionality, though it could elaborate on how precision affects the output.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'precision' with a description ('Optional precision in bits.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 'Get the value of pi' clearly states the function's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology and provides immediate understanding. However, it does not differentiate this constant from other sibling constant tools (e.g., Catalan, euler), which share the same pattern.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of any context, prerequisites, or constraints. For a simple constant retrieval, the lack of guidance may be acceptable, but the description could still note that it is for the mathematical constant pi.

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