arithmetic_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool generates a sequence but does not disclose behavioral traits such as output format (e.g., list of numbers), error handling for invalid inputs, or computational limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 that directly states the tool's function and parameters, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, error conditions, and usage context, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description does not compensate adequately for the missing structured data.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context by naming the parameters ('first term, common difference, and number of terms') and implying their roles in sequence generation. However, it doesn't provide details on constraints (e.g., valid ranges for 'num_terms') or examples, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Generate an arithmetic sequence with given first term, common difference, and number of terms.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('arithmetic sequence'), and includes domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'arithmetic_series' or 'arithmetic_sum', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 alternatives. It mentions a domain and category but gives no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.

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