log_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious output trait: it returns ln, log10, and log2 in addition to the requested base result. That is genuine added value. It does not, however, say what happens on invalid input (base=1, negative value) or how results are shaped, so a middle score is warranted.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the bonus-output fact second. Every word earns its place.

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 pure, side-effect-free two-parameter math function with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the operation and even flags the extra returned logarithms. Only minor gaps remain around error behavior for invalid bases/values.

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% — both 'base' (default 10, positive, not 1) and 'value' (positive) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'with any base,' which does not go 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Compute logarithm with any base.' That is unambiguous and no sibling tool performs logarithms, so no differentiation is strictly needed. It stops short of 5 only because it doesn't relate itself to any adjacent math utility (e.g. nth_root, complex_calc).

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 statement of when to reach for this tool, what inputs it expects at the call level, or what alternatives exist. The only guidance is implicit in the name and the schema's default base. For a simple math utility that may be tolerable, but the description itself provides none.

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