gcd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about error handling (e.g., what happens with non-integer inputs, negative numbers, or empty arrays), performance characteristics, or output format. The description is purely functional without behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for this simple mathematical tool and front-loads the essential 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?

For a mathematical tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what format the result will be in (single integer? array?), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal parameter guidance. Given the mathematical context and sibling tools, more completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions '两个或多个整数' (two or more integers), which implies the 'numbers' parameter should contain integers, but doesn't specify array format, constraints, or provide examples. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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: '计算两个或多个整数的最大公约数' (calculates the greatest common divisor of two or more integers). It specifies the verb (calculate) and resource (GCD of integers), but doesn't differentiate from sibling 'lcm' (least common multiple) tool, which serves a related mathematical function.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the mathematical purpose is clear, there's no mention of when to choose gcd over other mathematical operations or how it relates to sibling tools like 'lcm' for complementary number theory calculations.

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