eertree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does establish that this is a pure computation over a string producing a count. However, it omits what is actually returned (count only, or a tree structure), time/space behavior, and whether arbitrarily long or non-ASCII input is supported.

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 front-loaded sentence stating the algorithm and its result, with no filler. It is dense but every clause contributes.

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?

With no output schema, the description must define the return value, and it only partly does: 'count distinct palindromic substrings' conflicts with the framing of 'build a tree,' leaving it unclear whether the tool returns an integer or a structure. Adequate for a simple one-param tool, but not fully unambiguous.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Input string to analyse'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, length, or encoding detail beyond that, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Build'), the construct ('palindromic tree (eertree)'), and the outcome ('count distinct palindromic substrings'). This differentiates it reasonably from siblings like palindrome_check and manacher_palindrome, though it never explicitly signals that distinction.

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 choose this over palindromic siblings such as manacher_palindrome or palindrome_check, and no statement of inputs or constraints. Usage must be fully inferred from the name and description.

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