triangular_sequence

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 generates numbers but doesn't describe output format (e.g., list, array, JSON), error handling (e.g., for negative n), performance characteristics, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action.

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: the first sentence directly states the tool's purpose. The domain/category in parentheses adds context without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, handle edge cases (e.g., what if n=0?), or differentiate from similar tools. For a basic sequence generator, more context on behavior and usage would improve completeness.

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 one parameter 'n' with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying 'first n triangular numbers,' clarifying that 'n' controls the count of numbers generated. However, it doesn't explain constraints (e.g., n must be positive integer) or provide examples. With low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 the first n triangular numbers.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('triangular numbers'), and the domain/category context helps differentiate it from siblings like 'triangular_number' (likely checks if a number is triangular) or 'triangular_numbers' (might list triangular numbers up to a limit). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these similar-named tools.

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 ('basic_sequences'), but this is too vague to help an agent choose between this and sibling tools like 'triangular_numbers' or 'triangular_number' without further context. No explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives are given.

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