star_number

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 calculates a value, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention error handling (e.g., for invalid inputs), performance characteristics, or output format. For a tool with no 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Calculate the nth star number (6-pointed star). (Domain: arithmetic, Category: figurate_numbers)'. Every word contributes essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured 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 tool's mathematical nature, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, and behavioral context. While concise, it does not provide enough information for reliable tool invocation in a broader context, especially compared to sibling tools with similar functions.

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 0% description coverage, with one required integer parameter 'n'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'n' is the index for the star number. It does not explain constraints (e.g., n must be positive) or provide examples. Given the low schema coverage, the description compensates minimally, meeting the baseline for adequate but incomplete parameter semantics.

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: 'Calculate the nth star number (6-pointed star).' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('star number'), and provides domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., other figurate number calculators like 'hexagram_number'), 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 ('figurate_numbers'), but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'hexagram_number' or 'polygonal_number'). This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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