eng_shift

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency. It precisely explains the multiplication by 1000^steps, default step behavior, and negative step handling, and provides a concrete example. It omits edge cases or output format details, but for a pure mathematical function these are less critical.

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 and well-structured: it starts with a usage cue ('When:'), lists parameters, and provides an example—all in three short sentences with no filler.

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?

For a simple mathematical tool, the description covers the essential behavior and parameters. The output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not required. The example hints at the output style, and no critical information appears missing.

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 only provides types and a default, while the description adds meaning to 'steps' (negative shifts down) and explains how 'value' is transformed. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it could elaborate slightly more on 'value'.

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 function: a shift operation for engineering notation by multiplying with 1000^steps. It also distinguishes from the sibling eng_format by specifying 'ENG / ENG← style shift' and gives an example, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 begins with 'When:', indicating appropriate usage context. It also mentions an alternative function 'engshift(x,n)' in evaluate, which guides the agent toward alternative invocation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like eng_format, so it is not a full 5.

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