farey_neighbors

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 fails to describe any behavioral traits: it does not specify what 'neighbors' means (e.g., immediate left/right fractions), the output format, error handling for invalid inputs, or computational characteristics. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to predict the tool's 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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage. However, the parenthetical domain/category note, while potentially useful, is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 (mathematical tool with three parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain key aspects: what 'neighbors' are, the output structure, input constraints, and mathematical context. While conciseness is good, the description does not provide enough information for an agent to use the tool effectively 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (p, q, n) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics—it does not explain that p/q is the fraction and n is the order of the Farey sequence, nor does it clarify constraints (e.g., p and q coprime, n positive). This leaves parameters entirely unexplained.

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: 'Find the neighbors of a fraction in a Farey sequence.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('neighbors of a fraction'), and domain context ('Farey sequence'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'farey_sequence' or 'farey_fraction_between', which would be needed for 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about typical use cases (e.g., mathematical analysis, approximation problems) or prerequisites (e.g., valid fraction inputs). Without such information, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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