egyptian_fraction_lcm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'find common denominators' which implies a read-only calculation, but doesn't specify what the tool actually returns (just the LCM? a list of suitable denominators? something else?), whether there are size/complexity limitations, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 appropriately concise with two brief sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides domain/category context. There's no wasted verbiage, though the information density could be higher by being more specific about the actual function. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a mathematical tool that could have various interpretations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, what mathematical operation it performs (LCM calculation? finding denominators meeting certain criteria?), or provide examples. For a tool in a domain with multiple sibling tools, more specificity 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'denominators' in the context of finding common denominators, which aligns with the 'denominators' parameter name, but provides no additional semantic information about what the array should contain (unit fractions? any denominators?), expected format, constraints, or examples. The description adds minimal value beyond what's obvious from the parameter name.

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 states the tool 'Find common denominators for Egyptian fraction operations' which provides a general purpose (finding common denominators) and domain context (Egyptian fractions). However, it's vague about the specific operation - it doesn't specify whether this calculates LCMs, finds suitable denominators for addition/subtraction, or performs another specific function. The mention of 'operations' is ambiguous without specifying which operations.

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. While it mentions the domain (Egyptian fractions) and category, it doesn't indicate what specific problem this solves, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose this over other Egyptian fraction tools like 'egyptian_fraction_decomposition' or 'shortest_egyptian_fraction' that appear in the sibling list. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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