restricted_partitions

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 states the tool 'Count[s]' something, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify computational complexity, potential limitations (e.g., large n values), or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds domain/category context, which is somewhat useful but not essential. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be more structured with clearer separation of purpose and usage.

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 partition counting), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'restricted partition' is, how the counting is performed, or what the output looks like (e.g., integer count). This leaves too many unknowns for effective tool 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'max_part' in the constraint ('largest part is at most max_part'), which adds some meaning, but does not explain 'n' or provide any details on parameter roles, valid ranges, or interactions. This is insufficient 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: 'Count restricted partitions where largest part is at most max_part.' It specifies the verb ('Count'), resource ('restricted partitions'), and constraint ('largest part is at most max_part'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'distinct_partitions' or 'partition_count', which is why it's not a 5.

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 ('partitions'), but this is too vague to help an agent choose between similar tools like 'distinct_partitions' or 'partition_count'. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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