collatz_max_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the mathematical domain but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about input constraints (e.g., valid ranges for 'n'), computational characteristics (e.g., iterative nature, potential for large sequences), error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted text, and the domain/category tags are efficiently appended. Every word earns its place, making it easy 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 tool's mathematical nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the Collatz sequence is (though this might be assumed knowledge), provides no parameter details, and gives no indication of return values or behavior. For a tool with 1 parameter and no structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 must compensate. It doesn't mention the parameter 'n' at all, leaving its meaning and constraints undocumented. The description should explain that 'n' is the starting integer for the Collatz sequence, but it provides no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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: 'Find the maximum value reached in the Collatz sequence.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('maximum value'), and domain context ('Collatz sequence'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'collatz_sequence' or 'collatz_stopping_time', which prevents a perfect score.

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. There are sibling tools like 'collatz_sequence' and 'collatz_stopping_time' that operate on the same mathematical concept, but the description doesn't mention them or explain when this specific tool is appropriate. The domain/category tags are generic and don't help with tool selection.

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