calculate_sphere

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

With no annotations, the description accurately conveys that this is a pure computation tool returning volume and area. It implies read-only, stateless behavior. It does not mention potential errors or edge cases, but for a straightforward calculation this is sufficient.

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?

Description is highly concise: three sentences with key information front-loaded (formulas, use cases, input/output, reference to related tools). No unnecessary words.

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 simple nature of the tool, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and where to find related functionality. No gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'Inputs: radius,' which adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Radius' description. Formulas imply radius is the only input, but no extra semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the tool computes sphere volume and surface area with specific formulas. It provides use cases (ball, tank, astronomy) but does not explicitly differentiate from other shape calculators like calculate_cylinder or calculate_cone, which are present among sibling tools.

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?

Description advises use for ball, tank, or astronomy problems and references list_bundles for related math calculators. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative tools for other shapes.

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