e_continued_fraction

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 the tool generates an expansion but does not specify output format (e.g., list of integers), handling of invalid inputs, computational limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 one sentence. The additional domain and category information is brief and does not add unnecessary length. However, the lack of detail on parameters or usage slightly reduces efficiency, as key information is missing.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the expansion output looks like, how 'terms' affects results, or any limitations. For effective use, more context on behavior and parameters is needed.

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 ('terms') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about this parameter. It does not explain what 'terms' represents (e.g., number of expansion terms), valid ranges, or default behavior. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 expansion of e (Euler's number).' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('continued fraction expansion'), and target ('e'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'continued_fraction_e' or 'continued_fraction_expansion', which could cause confusion in selection.

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 a domain ('arithmetic') and category ('continued_fractions'), but this is too generic given siblings like 'continued_fraction_e' and 'continued_fraction_expansion'. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, constraints, or comparisons to other tools.

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