pythagorean_triples

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 mentions the mathematical operation but lacks behavioral details such as output format (e.g., list of triples, range constraints), performance characteristics (e.g., computational limits for 'limit'), or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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, stating the core purpose in one sentence with additional domain/category context. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 (mathematical computation with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, output format, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 description provides no information about the parameters 'limit' and 'primitive_only'. With 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description, the semantics of these parameters are completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and usage.

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: 'Find Pythagorean triples (x, y, z) where x² + y² = z².' It specifies the mathematical operation and domain (arithmetic, diophantine_equations). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'solve_quadratic_diophantine' or 'diophantine_analysis', which could handle similar equations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. With many sibling tools for mathematical computations (e.g., 'solve_quadratic_diophantine', 'diophantine_analysis'), there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this tool over others.

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