padovan_number

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 calculates a Padovan number, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as input constraints (e.g., valid range for 'n'), performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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: 'Calculate the nth Padovan number P_n.' The additional domain/category information is brief and relevant. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for an agent 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal. It states the purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, parameter constraints, or output format. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively beyond the basic calculation intent.

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. The description adds meaning by specifying it calculates the 'nth Padovan number', clarifying that 'n' is an index. However, it does not provide details like valid ranges (e.g., non-negative integers) or examples, which would be helpful given 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: 'Calculate the nth Padovan number P_n.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), the resource ('Padovan number'), and the parameter ('nth'), which is straightforward. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'fibonacci' or 'lucas_number', though the domain/category hints at specialization.

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 ('recursive_sequences'), which might imply usage in mathematical contexts, but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling tool comparisons (e.g., vs. 'fibonacci' or 'lucas_number').

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