lcm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does (calculates LCM) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling for non-integer inputs, performance characteristics, maximum array size, or what happens with empty/insufficient input arrays.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for this simple mathematical function 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 calculation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or provide examples. The agent would need to guess about the output structure and error handling.

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. It mentions '两个或多个整数' (two or more integers) which implies the 'numbers' parameter should contain integers, but doesn't specify format constraints, minimum array length, or handling of edge cases. This adds some meaning but insufficiently compensates for the schema gap.

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小公倍数' (calculates the least common multiple of two or more integers). It specifies the verb (calculate) and resource (LCM of integers), but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'gcd' which is a related but different mathematical operation.

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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'gcd' (greatest common divisor) or explain when LCM calculation is appropriate versus other mathematical operations available in the sibling list.

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