get_quantity_relation_scaffold

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly declares the tool is read-only ('Return the read-only method scaffold'), and explicitly states what it does not do: 'It does not solve questions, compute final answers, or select an option.' This is strong disclosure, though it could mention idempotency or lack of side effects.

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: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides key details and exclusions. Every term adds value.

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 the presence of an output schema (though not described), the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It lists all major components of the scaffold and sets appropriate expectations about what the tool does not do.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rules. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none. The schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the specific resource 'read-only method scaffold for quantity relation reasoning'. It lists the included components (problem-type routing, quantity extraction guidance, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes what it does not do, effectively differentiating from sibling scaffolds like get_verbal_reasoning_scaffold.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and content imply it is for quantity relation reasoning questions, there is no statement like 'Use this for quantity relation problems' or 'Consider get_logic_analysis_scaffold for logic tasks'. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from context.

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