math_gcd_lcm_calculator

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions using Euclidean algorithm and step-by-step output, giving some insight. However, it doesn't disclose read-only nature, auth needs, or other behavioral traits. Moderate 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 relatively concise with two sentences plus a reference to describe_tool. It front-loads purpose, but includes redundant 'Menu ID' which duplicates the tool name, wasting a few words.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. Description mentions step-by-step output but doesn't specify format for GCD/LCM results. Relies on external describe_tool for completeness. Lacks detail needed for a standalone understanding.

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 has two parameters (operation, numbers) with no descriptions and 0% coverage. Description does not clarify operation values (e.g., 'gcd' vs 'lcm'), leaving ambiguity. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 it computes GCD and LCM of integers using Euclidean algorithm, with prime factorization step-by-step. It is specific and distinguishes from other math calculators by focusing on these operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 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 says to compute GCD/LCM of any list of integers, implying when to use it. It directs to describe_tool for full guidance, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, which are limited given many sibling tools.

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