fibonacci

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 mentions the method ('efficient matrix exponentiation') but does not describe key behaviors such as input constraints (e.g., n must be non-negative, integer limits), performance characteristics (e.g., time complexity), error handling, or output format. For a computational tool with no annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and method. There is no wasted verbiage, and the parenthetical domain/category adds useful metadata without cluttering the core message. It efficiently communicates essential information in minimal space.

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 computational nature, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on input constraints (e.g., n must be non-negative), behavioral traits (e.g., performance, error handling), and output specifics (e.g., integer result, potential overflow). For a tool that performs mathematical calculations, more context is needed to ensure correct and safe usage.

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 one parameter 'n' of type integer. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'n' represents the position in the Fibonacci sequence ('nth Fibonacci number'), but it does not elaborate on valid ranges, constraints, or examples. Since schema coverage is low, the description partially compensates but falls short of fully clarifying parameter meaning.

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: 'Calculate the nth Fibonacci number using efficient matrix exponentiation.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('nth Fibonacci number'), and method ('efficient matrix exponentiation'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fibonacci_sequence' or 'binet_formula' (which also compute Fibonacci-related values), leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 method ('efficient matrix exponentiation') but does not specify scenarios where this is preferable (e.g., for large n, performance considerations) or when other Fibonacci-related tools might be more appropriate. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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