multiply

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic operation. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as mutability, side effects, error handling, or return format. With empty annotations, the description should cover these but does not.

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 short (three words), which is concise but at the expense of necessary information. While it avoids wordiness, it lacks substance that would aid an agent. A balanced approach would include more context without becoming verbose.

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 simple tool with two integer parameters and an output schema, the minimal description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits usage guidance, parameter details, and output description, leaving the agent with limited information for effective invocation.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters 'a' and 'b' beyond their types. There is no hint about numeric range, order, or semantics. The description merely restates what the schema already shows.

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 'Multiply two integers' clearly states the verb (multiply) and resource (two integers), distinguishing it from sibling arithmetic tools like add, subtract, and divide. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 (e.g., add, subtract, divide). It does not specify any prerequisites or contextual conditions.

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