triangular_number

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the calculation formula without addressing behavioral aspects like input validation (e.g., handling negative n), performance, error handling, or output format. It lacks context on what the tool does beyond the basic computation.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function and context without any unnecessary words or 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral traits, error cases, or return values, making it inadequate for a tool that performs a mathematical computation where input validation and output details are important.

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%, but the description adds meaning by defining 'n' as the input for the triangular number formula. However, it does not explain constraints (e.g., n must be non-negative integer) or provide examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 with a specific mathematical formula (T_n = n(n+1)/2) and clarifies its domain and category, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'triangular_numbers' (which likely lists them) and 'is_triangular_number' (which tests membership).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'triangular_numbers' or 'triangular_sequence' from the sibling list. The description mentions the domain and category but does not specify practical scenarios or exclusions.

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