farey_sequence

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 what the tool does but does not describe output format, error handling, performance characteristics, or limitations (e.g., valid ranges for 'n'). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap, as the agent lacks critical operational context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage, and the additional domain/category note is brief and relevant. This efficiency makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 generating a Farey sequence, the description is incomplete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage. The description does not explain what a Farey sequence is, the format of the output, or any mathematical properties. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves too many gaps for reliable 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 0% description coverage, with a single parameter 'n' of type integer but no semantic explanation. The description mentions 'order n' but does not clarify what 'order' means, valid ranges, or constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate adequately, leaving the parameter poorly defined.

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 the Farey sequence F_n of order n.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('Farey sequence'), and parameter ('order n'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'farey_neighbors' or 'farey_sequence_length', which are related but distinct, preventing a score of 5.

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 the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('farey_sequences'), which implies context, but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'farey_neighbors' or 'farey_sequence_properties'. This lack of explicit direction limits its utility for an agent.

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