get_quantity_relation_scaffold

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

The description states the tool is read-only and does not solve questions or compute answers, providing good behavioral boundaries despite the absence of annotations. No side effects or auth details are needed for a scaffold.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No waste or redundancy.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does and does not do. It is complete for its purpose.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate since schema coverage is 100% and no params need documentation.

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 specifies the tool returns a 'read-only method scaffold' for 'quantity relation reasoning' and lists components (problem-type routing, extraction guidance, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling scaffold tools for other reasoning types.

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 implies usage for quantity relation reasoning but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Minimal guidance beyond the name.

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