Generate Pascal's triangle rows and optionally return a specific zero-indexed row for combinatorics, binomial coefficients, or number-pattern tasks.
Generate rows of Pascal's triangle, optionally return a specific row.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | No | Number of rows to generate (1-50, default 10). | |
| nth_row | No | Return a specific row (0-indexed). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that output is rows of the triangle and that a single row can be returned instead, but omits output format, whether 'rows' and 'nth_row' interact, and the 1-50 bound is only in the schema. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free tool.
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 primary purpose comes first and the optional mode follows immediately.
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 simple two-parameter pure-computation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is that return shape (list of rows vs single row) is left implicit.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the 1-50 range, default 10, and 0-indexing. The description adds only a high-level gloss ('rows', 'specific row') and no syntax or interaction details beyond the schema, so the 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 (generate) and a specific resource (rows of Pascal's triangle), plus a secondary mode (return a specific row). The resource is inherently unique among siblings, so the purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative tool.
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 (e.g. binomial_probability or combination_calc), nor any stated preconditions. The phrase 'optionally return a specific row' hints at parameter behavior but not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.