gcd_lcm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions cost ($0.001 USDC) and a vague 'Other Utilities' label, but does not state the operation performed, input requirements, or expected output. The cost detail is useful but does not compensate for the lack of functional behavior.

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 brief, but it wastes its few words on a tautological 'Other Utilities' label. Only the cost sentence provides any useful information. Under-specification is not conciseness; the description should clearly state the tool's function.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a generic parameter schema, so the description must provide complete context. It fails to state even the basic purpose, inputs, or outputs, making it impossible for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema contains only a generic 'params' object with no defined properties, and the description adds no details about expected parameters. An agent cannot determine what arguments to supply, such as the numbers for which to compute GCD/LCM.

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 only restates the tool name and categorizes it as 'Other Utilities', without specifying that it computes greatest common divisor and least common multiple. It is essentially a tautology and fails to distinguish the tool from sibling math utilities.

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 alternatives like evaluate_math or fraction_calc. The description entirely omits use cases, prerequisites, or when this tool would be preferred.

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