gcd_lcm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only nature, return format, or side effects. It only lists operations without explaining what 'extended' does or how steps are returned.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from more structure to cover parameters and usage, though it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 has 3 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the operations or parameter semantics sufficiently. While an output schema exists, the description still fails to provide necessary context for parameter usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It mentions 'Compute GCD, LCM, or Euclidean algorithm steps' but does not clarify that 'operation' selects among these, nor what 'numbers' accepts (e.g., integers or strings), nor the effect of 'extended'. The description adds minimal value 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 the tool computes GCD, LCM, or Euclidean algorithm steps, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'modular' or 'factor_int', which might have overlapping use cases.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or typical usage scenarios. For example, it doesn't explain when to choose GCD over LCM or how to configure the operation parameter.

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