pentagonal_sequence

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 generates a sequence but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether n has constraints (e.g., must be positive), what happens for invalid inputs, the output format (list of numbers? string?), performance characteristics, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational details for a tool with parameters.

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 very concise—a single sentence plus domain/category tags. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the domain/category information ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: basic_sequences') might be redundant if already inferable from context, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's brief but could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has 1 parameter with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what pentagonal numbers are (though inferable from name), parameter constraints, return format, or error conditions. For a basic sequence generator, more context is needed to ensure correct usage, especially without structured support.

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 1 parameter (n) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description mentions 'first n pentagonal numbers', which implies n determines the count, but doesn't add meaning beyond this basic interpretation. It doesn't specify constraints (e.g., n must be positive integer), units, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 the first n pentagonal numbers.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('pentagonal numbers') with a clear scope ('first n'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pentagonal_number' (which likely generates a single pentagonal number) or 'polygonal_sequence' (which might handle general polygonal sequences), though the domain/category hint helps.

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 'Domain: arithmetic, Category: basic_sequences' which gives general context, but doesn't specify when to choose this over similar tools like 'pentagonal_number', 'polygonal_sequence', or other sequence generators (e.g., 'triangular_sequence', 'square_numbers'). No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are included.

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