volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates volume but doesn't describe what the calculation entails (e.g., numerical approximation, symbolic integration), error handling, performance characteristics, or output format. For a mathematical tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with a single sentence: 'Calculate the volume of revolution around x-axis'. There is no wasted text, and it directly states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of a mathematical calculation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the mathematical method, input formats, or what the output represents (e.g., a numeric value, units). This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters (expression, start, end) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the parameter names—it doesn't explain what 'expression' represents (e.g., a mathematical function in terms of x), or what 'start' and 'end' refer to (e.g., bounds for the x-axis). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate the volume of revolution around x-axis'. It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('volume of revolution'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'area' or 'integral', which might handle related mathematical operations. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'integral' or 'area', which could be relevant for related calculations, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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