calculate_fraction_operations

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output is a simplified fraction in lowest terms, which is helpful. However, it does not mention edge cases (e.g., division by zero, handling of integers) or any error behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise with two main sentences: one for the tool's purpose and one for usage and related tools. Information is front-loaded and no superfluous text. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but overall efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values, but it briefly mentions the result format. It does not address input validation or error handling, which is acceptable for a simple calculator. The reference to list_bundles provides context for related tools, but completeness could be improved with more details on constraints.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description repeats the parameter names (num1/den1, op, num2/den2) but adds no new meaning or constraints beyond the schema. It does not clarify the operation enum values or provide additional context like non-zero denominator requirements.

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 clearly states the tool performs arithmetic operations (add, subtract, multiply, divide) on two fractions and returns a simplified result. It specifies the resource (fractions) and verb (operations). While it mentions 'math homework' and directs to list_bundles, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calculate_fraction, but the focus on two fractions and operations implies distinction.

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 includes a usage hint ('Use for math homework') but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it list alternative tools. It directs to list_bundles for related calculators, offering some context but lacking exclusion criteria.

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