generalized_crt

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 the tool solves a system but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as input format expectations (e.g., string format for congruences), error handling, performance characteristics, or output structure. The description is too sparse to guide the agent effectively on how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 with two short phrases, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first phrase states the purpose clearly, but the second adds minimal value (domain/category). While not verbose, it lacks necessary details, making it less helpful than a more complete yet still concise description would be.

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 solving CRT systems, the description is incomplete. No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage mean the agent lacks critical information about input format, output structure, error conditions, and limitations. The description doesn't compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. It mentions 'congruences' implicitly but doesn't explain what they are, their required format (e.g., 'x ≡ a mod m' strings), or examples. With one required parameter and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent guessing about input semantics.

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: 'Solve generalized CRT system allowing non-coprime moduli.' It specifies the verb ('solve'), resource ('generalized CRT system'), and key capability ('allowing non-coprime moduli'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'crt_solve' (which likely handles only coprime moduli), missing full sibling distinction.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('modular_arithmetic'), but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crt_solve'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for tool selection.

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