stern_brocot_tree

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions generating a 'path' but doesn't disclose what the output format looks like, whether the algorithm has computational limits, what happens with invalid inputs (like zero denominators), or any error conditions. For a computational tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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—a single sentence plus domain/category tags—with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every element (action, resource, target, context) earns its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the output (what a 'path' entails), error handling, or mathematical assumptions. For a tool that performs a non-trivial algorithm on two integer inputs, more context is needed to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'target fraction' but doesn't explain that target_p and target_q represent numerator and denominator, nor does it specify constraints (e.g., positive integers, q ≠ 0). While it implies the parameters define a fraction, this is minimal compensation for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Generate path through Stern-Brocot tree to reach target fraction.' It specifies both the action ('generate path') and the resource ('Stern-Brocot tree'), and includes domain/category context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'farey_mediant_path' or 'best_rational_approximation' that might involve similar fraction-related operations.

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. While it mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('farey_sequences'), it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like 'calkin_wilf_tree' or 'farey_sequence' that also handle rational numbers. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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