divide

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the division operation and says nothing about edge cases like division by zero, error handling, or return type behavior. For a pure computation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential operation and operand order compactly, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite the simple nature of the tool, the description omits key behavioral context such as division-by-zero behavior. An output schema exists but likely only describes the return type, not error cases. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for safe 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%, so the description adds the crucial semantic that 'a' is the dividend and 'b' is the divisor. However, it does not provide additional constraints or expectations (e.g., non-zero denominator), leaving the agent to assume the schema's minimal information is sufficient.

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 'Divide a by b' clearly states the operation and the roles of the two operands, distinguishing it from add, subtract, and multiply. It is not a mere tautology of the tool name because it specifies the argument order, making the intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling arithmetic tools or any exclusions. While the operation is self-evident, the description does not explicitly state conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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