sos_dp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not state that this is a pure/read-only computation, what the return value is (a transformed array of the same length?), or the algorithmic complexity that makes it preferable to naive enumerations. Only the operation's name conveys behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 numeric transform with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what is returned and what 'direction' changes semantically. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict the result shape or confirm the transform's orientation.

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% — the 'values' parameter is documented as an array of values indexed by bitmask with a power-of-two length requirement, and 'direction' lists subset_sum/superset_sum with a default. The description adds no meaning beyond this, so the schema baseline of 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?

The description names a specific, well-defined algorithm (Sum over Subsets / zeta transform) and its domain (bitmasks), which is far more than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as bitmask_ops, moebius_function (the inverse transform), or fft_transform, so an agent must know the algorithm to place it.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of what problem this solves, no prerequisites (e.g. fixed-length power-of-two input), and no pointer to alternatives like moebius_function for the inverse or plain bitwise tools. The agent must infer everything from the algorithm name.

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