continued_fraction_e

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool generates a representation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as output format, error handling, computational limits, or whether it's deterministic. The description is minimal and lacks details on 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first part. The additional domain/category information is relevant but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the structure is slightly fragmented with parentheses.

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 complexity (mathematical constant generation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It specifies what is generated but misses details on behavior, parameters, and output. However, it provides enough context to understand the basic function, making it minimally adequate.

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 does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema. The schema defines a 'depth' parameter as an integer, but the description does not explain what depth means (e.g., number of terms, precision) or provide usage examples. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 continued fraction representation of e' with a specific pattern '[2; 1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 6, 1, 1, 8, ...]'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'e_continued_fraction' by specifying the exact mathematical constant (e) and its unique pattern, avoiding tautology.

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 implies usage for generating continued fractions of e, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'e_continued_fraction' or 'continued_fraction_expansion'. It provides domain/category context ('arithmetic, mathematical_constants'), which helps infer usage, but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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