fraction_arithmetic

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states exact arithmetic and result reduction, which are key behaviors. However, it does not disclose operand order (e.g., first minus second), error handling for zero denominators, or input constraints (e.g., strings representing integers). With zero annotations, more behavioral context would be expected.

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 very concise (12 words in one sentence). It is front-loaded with the verb 'adds, subtracts, multiplies, or divides'. While efficient, it lacks structure like bullet points or parameter explanations that could improve clarity without added length.

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?

With 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but not how inputs map (order), what the output format is (implied fraction but not specified), or error cases. Gaps exist in parameter semantics and behavioral details.

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 description must compensate. It only mentions 'two fractions' without explaining specific parameters (firstNumerator, etc.) or the operation enum. The input format (string integers) is in schema but not reinforced. Minimal added value beyond 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 the tool performs arithmetic operations (add, subtract, multiply, divide) on two fractions exactly and returns the reduced result. It distinguishes from sibling tools like simplify_fraction (single fraction) and decimal arithmetic tools like add/subtract/multiply/division.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies use for fraction arithmetic but lacks guidance on selecting this over decimal tools or simplify_fraction. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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