ceiling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation always rounds up, handles negatives as ceiling, logs the operation and result, and returns either a result or an error message. It does not mention edge cases like NaN or infinity, but the behavior is otherwise well covered.

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 compact and clearly organized with Description, Args, Returns, and Notes sections. Every sentence earns its place and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter math operation, the description is complete: it defines the behavior, gives the required input shape, states the return shape, and notes logging behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values further.

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 clarifies that `data` is a wrapper object containing the input number `a`. This helps an agent navigate the nested structure, but it adds little beyond what the schema already shows and provides no constraints, ranges, or examples for the parameter value.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it rounds a number up to the nearest integer. The examples, especially -3.1 -> -3, effectively distinguish ceiling from floor and other arithmetic siblings.

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 intended use is implied by the name and the operation description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as floor or round. No exclusions or sibling routing are provided.

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