magic_constants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about error handling, performance characteristics, computational complexity, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents 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 - a single sentence followed by domain/category tags. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it efficient but potentially underspecified.

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 a calculation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what format the output takes, what errors might occur, or provide any examples. The domain/category tags add minimal context but don't compensate for the missing information.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'n', and the description provides no additional information about what 'n' represents. While it mentions 'n×n magic squares', it doesn't clarify valid ranges, constraints, or the mathematical meaning of 'n' in this context. For a tool with one parameter and zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 states the tool 'Calculate magic constants for n×n magic squares' which provides a clear verb ('Calculate') and resource ('magic constants'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'magic constants' specifically are. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'magic squares' (a specific domain), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other mathematical calculation tools in the sibling list.

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', 'special_numbers') imply a mathematical context, there's no explicit mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what other tools might be better for related calculations.

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