continued_fraction_expansion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information on output format (e.g., list of integers), error handling (e.g., for irrational numbers), computational limits, or whether it's deterministic. The description is purely functional without behavioral context.

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 very concise—a single sentence with a parenthetical domain/category note. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity and lack of parameter documentation, bordering on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 complexity, three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect the computation, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that computes continued fractions—a non-trivial algorithm—more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, leaving all three (x, max_terms, tolerance) undocumented. It doesn't explain what 'x' represents, what 'max_terms' limits, or what 'tolerance' controls, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Compute continued fraction expansion of a real number.' It specifies the verb ('compute'), resource ('continued fraction expansion'), and domain ('real number'), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'continued_fraction_e', 'continued_fraction_golden_ratio', or 'continued_fraction_pi', which compute expansions for specific constants rather than arbitrary real numbers.

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 the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('continued_fractions'), but doesn't explain when to choose this over sibling tools like 'cf_to_rational' (converts continued fractions to rationals) or 'rational_to_cf' (converts rationals to continued fractions). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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