fibonacci_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. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify output format (e.g., list of integers), handling of edge cases (e.g., n=0 or negative n), performance characteristics, or error conditions. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 very concise—a single sentence plus domain/category tags—with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits necessary details for effective tool use.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or output details. For a tool with one parameter and no structured documentation, this description leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke and interpret results.

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 with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal semantics. It mentions 'n' implicitly ('first n Fibonacci numbers') but doesn't explain its meaning, valid range, or constraints (e.g., must be positive integer). This is insufficient given the low schema coverage, failing to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 first n Fibonacci numbers.' It specifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('Fibonacci numbers') with a parameter scope ('first n'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fibonacci' or 'fibonacci_greedy_egyptian', which might have different behaviors or outputs.

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 the domain/category tags ('arithmetic', 'basic_sequences') give some context, there's no explicit mention of when to choose this over similar tools like 'fibonacci' or 'fibonacci_greedy_egyptian', nor any prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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