integers_in_range

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 mentions the types of integers generated (positive, negative, and zero), which adds some behavioral context, but lacks details on output format (e.g., list, sequence), ordering, inclusivity of endpoints, or error handling for invalid ranges. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds domain/category context, which is somewhat redundant but not wasteful. Overall, it's efficiently structured with minimal fluff.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, output format, or behavioral constraints like range validation. For a simple 2-parameter tool, this leaves significant gaps that could hinder correct 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%, so the description must compensate. It implies parameters for defining a range ('in a given range'), but doesn't name or explain 'start' and 'end' parameters from the schema, their semantics (e.g., inclusive/exclusive), or valid values. This leaves key parameter details undocumented.

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 integers (positive, negative, and zero) in a given range.' It specifies the action (generate), resource (integers), and scope (range), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'range_value' or 'in_range' that might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a domain and category ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: number_systems'), but this is generic and doesn't help the agent choose between this and sibling tools like 'range_value' or 'natural_numbers'.

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