mediant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the calculation action but does not describe output format, error handling, or constraints (e.g., integer inputs, non-zero denominators). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, such as whether it returns a simplified fraction or raw numerator/denominator.

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: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by domain/category tags. There is no wasted verbiage, and every part (calculation, fractions, domain) earns its place efficiently.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, output format, and behavioral traits. While conciseness is high, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without guessing at semantics.

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 0% description coverage, with parameters p1, q1, p2, q2 undocumented. The description does not explain these parameters at all—it does not clarify that they represent numerators and denominators of two fractions. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings ambiguous.

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: 'Calculate the mediant of two fractions.' It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('mediant of two fractions'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'farey_mediant_path' or 'farey_neighbors', which might also involve mediants in Farey sequences, so it misses 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('farey_sequences'), which hints at context, but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'farey_mediant_path' or 'best_approximation_farey'. Without explicit usage instructions, the agent must infer applicability.

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