cross_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a return detail (magnitude and parallelism check), which is useful, but it omits the expected cross-product vector result and gives no safety/purity characterization. The single behavioral note is only narrowly informative.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation leads. Slightly muddled by the return-value clause, which is oddly phrased but still brief.

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 2-parameter pure math function with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. The return claim ('magnitude and parallelism check') is confusing and incomplete for a tool whose primary output is normally a vector, leaving a real gap.

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 both parameters are documented as [x,y,z] vectors there, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Compute') and resource ('cross product of two 3D vectors'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling dot_product. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the named operation is self-identifying.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as dot_product or matrix_operate, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent is left to infer that this is the right tool from the name alone.

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