combinatorics_operation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits, but it only lists operation types. It gives no information about side effects, return values, error handling, or constraints on arguments, which is a significant gap for an operation-based tool.

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, a single phrase with no wasted words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with multiple operations. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but slightly too thin to be a 5.

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?

Although an output schema exists and may cover return values, the description provides almost no context for selecting operations or understanding the differences between them. For a tool with eight possible operations and two numeric parameters, this is insufficient for effective use.

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 100%, so the structured fields already explain all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context about how n and k interact or how each operation uses them, but it also doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's domain (combinatorics) and lists example operations, but lacks a clear verb or explicit statement of what it does. It is not a tautology, but it is vague about the actual action performed.

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 sibling tools, no alternatives are mentioned, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. The description only names the domain, leaving the agent without decision support.

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