polygonal_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 of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe key behaviors: what the output format is (e.g., list of numbers), whether there are constraints on inputs (e.g., n and s must be positive integers), or any error handling. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 concise with two sentences, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, but the second adds limited value with domain/category tags that don't enhance tool understanding. It could benefit from more detail without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity (a mathematical sequence generator with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details: output format, input constraints, and behavioral traits. While the purpose is clear, the tool's full context isn't adequately covered for reliable agent use.

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 schema only indicates n and s are integers without explaining their meaning. The description adds minimal semantics: 'first n s-gonal numbers' implies n is the count of numbers to generate and s is the polygon sides. However, it doesn't clarify valid ranges (e.g., s >= 3 for polygonal numbers) or provide examples, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 s-gonal numbers.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('s-gonal numbers'), and scope ('first n'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'polygonal_number' or 'centered_polygonal_number', which might handle similar figurate numbers.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('figurate_numbers'), which gives some context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'polygonal_number' (which might check if a number is polygonal) or other sequence generators. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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