generate_random_float

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cryptographically secure,' which adds some context about security and randomness quality, but fails to cover other critical aspects like performance, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits beyond security, and output expectations. For a tool with rich input schema but no structured support, the description should do more to guide effective 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters (min, max, count, precision) are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, their roles in generating floats, or any constraints beyond the schema's numeric types. This results in poor semantic clarity for users.

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 specific action ('generate'), resource type ('cryptographically secure random floating-point numbers'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the numeric type (float vs boolean, bytes, integer, string, etc.). It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 its siblings (e.g., generate_random_integer for integers, generate_random_choice for selections) or any alternatives. It lacks context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement.

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