solve_linear_diophantine

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 solves for integer solutions, implying a computational or analytical operation, but does not describe output format, error handling, performance characteristics, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. The parenthetical domain/category adds minor context without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward mathematical tool, with no wasted words.

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 (solving Diophantine equations), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the output looks like (e.g., solution set format), handling of edge cases (e.g., no solutions), or computational behavior. For a 3-parameter tool with no structured support, more descriptive detail is needed.

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 3 parameters (a, b, c) with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter details are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'ax + by = c', which maps to the parameters but adds minimal semantic context (e.g., no explanation of coefficient roles, integer constraints, or typical value ranges). With low schema coverage, the description does not adequately compensate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Solve linear Diophantine equation ax + by = c for integer solutions.' It specifies the verb ('solve'), the resource ('linear Diophantine equation'), and the domain/category, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'solve_quadratic_diophantine' or 'diophantine_analysis'.

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 scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit usage instructions, the agent lacks context for tool selection.

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