Single tool 'evaluate_batch' has a basic schema but critical gaps in descriptions. Tool description is minimal (27 chars, below 34-char p10 baseline). Parameter 'expressions' lacks description entirely, LLMs cannot infer what format strings should take (e.g., '2+2', '(3*4)/2', or raw tokens). No output schema documented; response structure is inferred from code only. No error handling guidance, division by zero and parse errors are handled internally but not communicated to the LLM. Tool naming is acceptable (verb_noun pattern) but descriptions fail the 10 - 1024 char and completeness bar.
Batch arithmetic evaluation
Parameter 'expressions' has no description. LLMs cannot infer valid input format (e.g., '2+2', '(3*4)/2', operator precedence rules, or supported functions). Violates pattern:tool-description requirement that every parameter must have a non-empty description.
Tool description is 27 characters ('Batch arithmetic evaluation'), below the 34-char p10 baseline. Lacks WHAT (what operations?), WHEN (when to use vs. single evaluation?), and prerequisites (supported operators, limits). Does not state that tool modifies no state (read-only).
Output schema not documented in tool definition. Response structure (success, results array with expression/result/error/success fields) is visible only in code. LLMs cannot plan downstream operations or extract fields without explicit schema documentation.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 38 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Error handling provides no recovery guidance. Division by zero, parse errors, and invalid expressions are caught but returned as error strings in the results array. LLM receives no hint on how to correct input (e.g., 'Division by zero in expression X. Rewrite without division by zero.').
No constraints on 'expressions' array size. LLM could pass 10,000 expressions, causing unbounded memory/CPU usage. Rubric requires min/max bounds for numeric and array parameters.