absolute

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint and idempotentHint. It does not disclose return format, edge cases (e.g., negative zero), or any side effects, leaving a complete burden on the schema and annotations.

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 three words, but it lacks any additional useful information. While front-loaded, it is too sparse to be considered appropriately sized for a tool with no parameter descriptions or output schema.

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 lack of parameter descriptions and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the tool returns, how it handles invalid inputs, or any math context (e.g., returns positive number). The description alone is insufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It does not mention the single parameter 'value' or its meaning (e.g., the number to take absolute of). The parameter is only defined by its type in the schema.

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 'Absolute value.' clearly states the tool computes the absolute value of a number, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling math functions (e.g., add, sqrt) by its unique operation.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any context on prerequisites or constraints. For a simple operation, this might be acceptable, but explicit guidance is absent.

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