baby_giant_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state complexity/performance characteristics of BSGS (O(sqrt(n)) time and memory), whether it fails or errors when no solution exists, or what it returns on failure. For an algorithm with distinctive runtime and failure-mode behavior, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the problem, the algorithm, and the exact mathematical relation. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For a pure computational tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mathematical contract but omits return shape (does it return x, or a status/None on no-solution?), failure behavior, and any complexity caveats an agent should know before invoking. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the mathematical roles (base^x = target mod modulus), which frames how the params combine but adds no format, range, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and named algorithm (solve the discrete logarithm using baby-step giant-step) and even parenthesizes the mathematical definition: 'find x such that base^x = target mod modulus'. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like modular_arithmetic, log_base, or pollard_rho without opening the schema.

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 implies when this applies (solving discrete logarithms) but never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as pollard_rho or brute-force search, nor any constraints on input size beyond the schema's modulus cap. Implied usage only, no exclusions or alternative routing.

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