gap_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does ('analyze gaps'), with no information on output format, computational complexity, error handling, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 purpose. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 mathematical analysis tools, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the analysis entails, the format of results, and parameter meaning, leaving critical gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 one parameter 'n' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what 'n' represents (e.g., order of the Farey sequence, upper bound). Without any parameter semantics in the description, the agent lacks essential context to use the tool correctly, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: 'Analyze gaps between consecutive fractions in Farey sequence.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('gaps'), and domain context ('Farey sequence'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'farey_sequence' or 'farey_neighbors', which prevents 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 mentions the domain ('arithmetic, Category: farey_sequences') but offers no explicit instructions on prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons with related tools like 'farey_sequence' or 'farey_neighbors'. This leaves the agent without clear direction.

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