create_custom_metric

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('creates') but doesn't disclose if this modifies global state, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., overwriting existing metrics), or handles errors (e.g., invalid components). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unclear.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('creates a custom metric tensor') and specifies the inputs ('from provided components and symbols'), making it easy to parse. Every element earns its place, adhering to ideal 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?

Given the tool's complexity (creating a mathematical tensor with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the result (e.g., returns a tensor object, stores it in state), parameter details, or usage context. For a tool in a math/physics-oriented server with many siblings, this leaves too many gaps for reliable agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only vaguely references 'components and symbols' without explaining their roles, formats, or relationships. It doesn't clarify what 'components' (arrays of strings) represent mathematically, how 'symbols' (array of strings) relate to them, or the meaning of 'config' (enum 'll'/'uu'). This fails to add meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('creates') and the resource ('a custom metric tensor'), specifying it's built 'from provided components and symbols'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_predefined_metric' (which likely uses pre-built metrics) and 'create_matrix' (which creates a different mathematical object). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'create_coordinate_system'), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing components and symbols defined first), compare it to 'create_predefined_metric' for simpler cases, or specify contexts like tensor analysis in physics/math. Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and other creation tools.

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