collatz_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say what the result looks like (full term list vs. length vs. peak value), whether the input must be strictly positive or what happens otherwise, or that output size/speed can grow quickly for large inputs. For a zero-annotation tool this is a notable gap, even though the operation itself is a pure read-only computation.

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 with zero filler — the resource and its constraint appear immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves no room for the behavioral detail an unannotated tool needs.

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 is structurally simple (one required numeric param, no nesting, no output schema), so a short description is defensible. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the description never indicates what is returned or how results scale, which an agent must know to use the result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented in-schema as 'Positive integer to start the sequence.' The description's 'for a positive integer' merely restates that constraint, adding no syntax, range, or boundary semantics 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 ('Compute') and a specific resource ('Collatz (3n+1) sequence'), and even glosses the term so an agent unfamiliar with the name knows exactly what algorithm is involved. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many adjacent math siblings (e.g. fibonacci_sequence, lucas_theorem), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus the other sequence/number-theory tools in the sibling list, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only implicit usage cue is the 'positive integer' constraint.

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