fibonacci

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool calculates but provides no information about computational complexity, handling of large values, error conditions, return format, or performance characteristics. For a mathematical computation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't bury important information.

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 that this is a computational tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (a single number? formatted string?), doesn't mention performance considerations for large n values, and doesn't differentiate from the similar 'fibonacciSequence' tool. For a tool that performs mathematical computation, more context is needed.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It clarifies that parameter 'n' represents the position in the Fibonacci sequence, which is helpful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain what values of 'n' are valid (though the schema shows integer range), whether n starts at 0 or 1, or how negative values might be handled.

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's purpose: '计算斐波那契数列的第n项' (calculates the nth term of the Fibonacci sequence). It specifies both the verb (calculate) and resource (nth term of Fibonacci sequence), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'fibonacciSequence', which appears to calculate the entire sequence rather than a single term.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'fibonacciSequence' or explain that this tool returns a single term while the sibling returns a sequence. There's no context about appropriate use cases or limitations.

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