postage_stamp_problem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('solve'), without explaining how it behaves—e.g., whether it returns a solution, all solutions, or an error if unsolvable; computational complexity; or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 of a diophantine equation solver with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details: behavioral traits (e.g., solution format, error handling), parameter meanings, and output expectations. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer correct usage.

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 description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'exact postage with given denominations,' which hints at the parameters ('amount' and 'denominations'), but does not clarify their semantics—e.g., that 'amount' is the target postage value, 'denominations' are available stamp values, or constraints like positive integers. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Solve the postage stamp problem (exact postage with given denominations).' It specifies the verb ('solve'), resource ('postage stamp problem'), and provides domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., other diophantine equation solvers like 'solve_linear_diophantine'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 ('diophantine_equations'), but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'solve_linear_diophantine' or 'diophantine_analysis'. This leaves the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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