collatz_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 the sequence until reaching 1, which implies iterative computation, but lacks details on behavior such as error handling for invalid inputs, computational limits, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond the basic algorithm.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted language, and it efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 of a mathematical sequence generator with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects such as the output format (e.g., list of integers), error conditions, or performance implications, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 one parameter 'n' with 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal semantics by indicating 'n' is the starting point for the sequence, but does not specify constraints (e.g., must be a positive integer) or provide examples. Given the low schema coverage, the description compensates slightly but not fully, meeting the baseline for partial value.

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 with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('Collatz sequence'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the mathematical problem (3n+1). It explicitly mentions the domain and category, which helps differentiate it from other arithmetic or iterative sequence tools in the sibling list.

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. While it mentions the domain and category, it does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate if 'n' must be positive or if there are performance considerations for large inputs.

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