ratio_simplify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the result is returned as decimal and percentage forms, but says nothing about error behavior, sign handling, or non-integer input limits. It adds some behavioral value but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed immediately by the return forms. No filler.

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 math utility with 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient, and the stated decimal/percentage return partly compensates for the absent output schema. It stops short of noting input constraints such as negatives or decimals, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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% with only two numeric parameters, so the schema already documents a and b fully, including that b must be non-zero. The description's 'a:b' notation reinforces the pairing but adds no syntax or format 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 resource ('Simplify a ratio a:b') plus scope ('to its lowest terms'), which distinguishes it from siblings like aspect_ratio, proportion_solve, and percentage_calc. An agent can identify the operation 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when an alternative (e.g., proportion_solve or aspect_ratio) would be preferable, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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