tribonacci_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 Tribonacci number, implying a deterministic mathematical function, but does not describe potential behaviors such as handling of negative or large integer inputs, performance characteristics, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, 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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and includes domain/category tags. There is no wasted verbiage, and every element (calculation, parameter, context) earns its place efficiently.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter semantics that would enhance completeness. For a simple mathematical function, it meets a baseline but could be more informative to fully guide an AI agent.

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 parameter 'n' of type integer. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'nth' in the context of Tribonacci numbers, implying 'n' is an index. However, it does not elaborate on valid ranges, default values, or examples, leaving the schema to define the parameter fully. Given the low schema coverage, the description provides some but insufficient compensation.

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 Tribonacci number T_n.' It specifies the verb ('Calculate'), resource ('Tribonacci number'), and parameter ('nth'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fibonacci' or 'tetranacci_number', which are similar recursive sequence 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 ('recursive_sequences'), which implies context but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings like 'fibonacci' or 'tetranacci_number'. This lack of explicit guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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