calculate_ratio_simplify

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

No annotations; description says 'Returns simplified ratio' but does not detail behavior for edge cases, input constraints (excl. min 0), or result format. Contradiction with 'optional c' in description vs schema.

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?

Concise two-sentence description. Front-loaded with core purpose. Minor issue: 'optional c' adds confusion.

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 output schema existence, return values need not be explained, but description lacks info on error cases, input range, or handling of non-coprime numbers. Inconsistency with 'optional c' makes it incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds context about ratio simplification but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond schema. The 'optional c' mention is misleading.

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 simplifies a ratio using GCD, with explicit use cases. Minor inconsistency: mentions 'optional c' but input schema only has two required parameters.

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?

Provides basic usage context ('proportions, mixing, or scaling') and a reference to related calculators, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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