sympy_fibonacci

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not clarify the return type, side effects, or constraints (e.g., does it accept large n?). The description fails to compensate for missing annotations.

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 (two words) but at the cost of completeness. It fails to convey essential information, making it under-specified rather than appropriately terse.

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 that the tool has an output schema (unseen) and is a mathematical function, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not specify the output format, which is critical for an agent using the result.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'n' as 'Non-negative integer', the tool's description adds no value. The meaning of 'n' (e.g., index or term number) is not elaborated, so the agent may misinterpret how to call the tool.

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 'Fibonacci number' is vague. It does not specify whether it computes the nth Fibonacci number, the sequence, or some other aspect. It adds minimal clarity beyond the tool name itself, given siblings like sympy_factorial and sympy_binomial have more descriptive text.

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. Siblings such as sympy_factorial or sympy_catalan could be used for similar sequences, but no differentiation is given.

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