continued_fraction_pi

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 continued fraction representation, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's deterministic, if there are rate limits, error handling for invalid depths, or performance characteristics. The example suggests it outputs a sequence, but no details on format or truncation behavior are given.

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, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. The example and domain/category add context without unnecessary verbosity. However, the parentheses could be integrated more smoothly, and it lacks structural elements like bullet points for clarity, but overall it's efficient.

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 representation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format (e.g., list structure), error conditions, or practical usage notes. For a tool with one undocumented parameter and no structured output, more detail is needed to guide effective 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 1 parameter ('depth') with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what 'depth' means (e.g., number of terms in the continued fraction), valid ranges, default behavior, or units. This is inadequate given the low schema coverage, failing to compensate for the lack of structured 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: 'Generate continued fraction representation of pi' with a specific example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'pi_digits' or 'compute_pi_chudnovsky' by focusing on continued fraction representation rather than decimal digits or computation methods. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'continued_fraction_e' or 'continued_fraction_golden_ratio' beyond the domain/category mention.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions the domain (arithmetic) and category (mathematical_constants), which implies context, but gives no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify when to choose this over 'pi_digits' or other pi-related tools, nor does it mention any constraints like depth limitations.

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