random_float

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the stochastic nature ('random') and the return interval '[0,1)' though it does not explicitly mention uniformity or other implementation details. This is adequate for a simple, stateless utility.

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, concise sentence is used—'Return a random float in [0,1).' It is front-loaded, contains no filler or redundant wording, and is exactly as long as needed.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully specifies the result with no ambiguities. The interval is explicit, and no additional side effects or requirements exist. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 are zero parameters, so the input schema has no descriptive gaps. The rubric establishes a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, and the description adds no needed semantics beyond what is obvious.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('a random float') with an exact range ('[0,1)'). It fully distinguishes the tool's purpose from the sibling tool 'wait', leaving no ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives. However, the usage is implied by the purpose: use it when a random float in [0,1) is needed. No formal guidance is provided.

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