calculate_triangle_heron

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output fields (area, perimeter, type) but does not mention edge cases like triangle inequality or input validation. For a pure calculation tool, the description is adequate but could be more thorough.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant information. Every sentence is purposeful and front-loaded. Highly concise.

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 simplicity, presence of output schema, and the description covering purpose, inputs, outputs, and a related tool, it is fairly complete. Could mention expected input constraints (e.g., triangle inequality) but not essential.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described as 'Side a', etc. The description adds 'Inputs: sides a, b, c', which does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool computes triangle area using Heron's formula, specifies inputs (sides a, b, c) and outputs (area, perimeter, type). It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing the specific formula and use case when angles are unknown.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when angles aren't known', providing clear context. Also directs to list_bundles for related calculators. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the given guidance is sufficient for a simple tool.

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