Performs bitwise AND, OR, XOR, NOT, NAND, NOR, and shift operations on integers, returning binary calculation results for programming and logic tasks.
Perform bitwise operations (AND, OR, XOR, NOT, NAND, NOR, shifts) on integers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | First integer. | |
| b | No | Second integer (not needed for NOT). | |
| operation | No | Operation: and, or, xor, not, nand, nor, shift_left, shift_right (default and). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation set and that inputs are integers, but omits output type, shift semantics, and invalid-input behavior; this is minimum viable but not rich behavioral disclosure.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and operation set, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple calculator tool.
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 tool with rich parameter schema, the description gives enough to understand basic purpose. However, it does not clarify shift amount behavior, return type, or when to choose it over sibling bit tools, leaving gaps.
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 100%, and the schema already documents a, b, operation values, default, and the NOT exception. The description only broadly repeats the operation list and adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: perform bitwise operations on integers, and lists the operation set. It does not differentiate from siblings such as bitmask_ops or bit_count, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any routing to alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name and operation list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.