shortest_egyptian_fraction

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 mentions 'brute force search', which implies potential computational intensity or limitations, but does not elaborate on performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this lack of detail is a significant gap, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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: it states the core purpose in the first clause and adds domain/category context efficiently. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. The structure is optimal for a tool description of this complexity.

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's complexity (three parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits like performance or limitations, and output expectations. While conciseness is high, the description fails to compensate for the missing structured data, making it insufficient 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (numerator, denominator, max_terms) are documented in the schema. The description does not add any information about these parameters, such as their roles, constraints, or how they interact. This leaves the agent with no guidance beyond the raw schema types, which is inadequate for effective tool use.

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 the shortest Egyptian fraction representation by brute force search.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('shortest Egyptian fraction representation'), and method ('brute force search'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'egyptian_fraction_decomposition' or 'fibonacci_greedy_egyptian', which might offer alternative methods or outputs, so it misses 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. It mentions the domain and category ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: egyptian_fractions'), but this is too vague to help an agent choose between sibling tools like 'egyptian_fraction_decomposition' or 'is_optimal_egyptian_fraction'. There are no explicit instructions on when or when not to use it, or what prerequisites might be needed.

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