crt_solve

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 method ('Chinese Remainder Theorem') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like input constraints (e.g., moduli must be coprime), error handling, output format, or computational limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool performing mathematical computations.

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 sentence. The domain/category tags add context without verbosity. However, the lack of elaboration on parameters or usage slightly undermines efficiency, as key details are omitted.

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 (solving congruences), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover input constraints, output format, error cases, or mathematical assumptions, making it inadequate for reliable use without external knowledge.

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 explain the parameters 'remainders' and 'moduli' beyond what the schema provides (arrays of integers). No details on array lengths, constraints (e.g., equal lengths, coprime moduli), or examples are given, leaving parameter meaning unclear.

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: 'Solve system of congruences using Chinese Remainder Theorem.' It specifies the verb ('solve'), resource ('system of congruences'), and method ('Chinese Remainder Theorem'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generalized_crt' or other modular arithmetic tools, 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 minimal usage guidance. It includes domain and category tags ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: modular_arithmetic'), which imply context, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'generalized_crt' or other solving methods). No prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons are mentioned.

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