base_arith

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral context: 32-bit operation, integer/bitwise not floating, and supported operation set. It does not fully describe edge cases like overflow or result formatting, but the output schema exists to handle return structure, so the description carries an appropriate share of the burden.

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 compact, using a structured 'When/Params/Example' format. Every sentence adds value: use case, parameter values, and a concrete example. No fluff or repetition of schema data.

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?

The description provides essential usage context, parameter details, and an example. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to describe return values. It could slightly improve by stating how results are represented in the chosen base, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates strongly by enumerating all op values (add, sub, mul, div, and, or, xor, xnor, not, neg), explaining b is not needed for not/neg, and listing base values (2, 8, 10, 16). It also provides an illustrative example that clarifies expected string inputs.

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 tool performs integer/bitwise arithmetic in a chosen base (32-bit), with a specific list of operations. It explicitly distinguishes itself from floating-point evaluation by saying 'not floating evaluate' and names the sibling 'evaluate'.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'When: integer/bitwise arithmetic in a chosen base' and explicitly excludes floating-point use by saying 'not floating evaluate'. It also clarifies parameter usage for unary vs binary operations via 'b (except not/neg)' and gives a concrete example.

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