Two simple mathematical tools with basic descriptions and schemas. Both tools have proper type definitions (integer inputs) and parameter descriptions. However, descriptions are minimal (under 50 chars), lacking context on when to use each tool or what constitutes valid input ranges. No output schema documentation. No error handling guidance for edge cases (e.g., negative factorials, large Fibonacci indices). Tools lack verb-noun naming convention (fibonacci/factorial are nouns, not verb_noun). No parameter constraints (min/max bounds). Logging is present but tools do not leverage structured error responses or recovery guidance.
Calculate the factorial of a number.
Calculate the nth Fibonacci number.
Tool names lack action verbs. 'fibonacci' and 'factorial' are nouns; should be 'calculate_fibonacci' or 'compute_factorial' to signal intent and follow verb_noun convention.
Descriptions are too brief (under 50 chars each). Missing context on valid input ranges, when to use each tool, and what happens with edge cases (negative n, very large n).
No parameter constraints documented. Integer parameters lack min/max bounds. LLMs may pass absurd values (n=1000000) causing performance issues or stack overflow.
No output schema documented. LLMs cannot infer return type structure or plan downstream operations. Baseline requires 100% of A+ tools to document return types.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 53 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Error handling lacks recovery guidance. factorial() raises ValueError for negative n, but error message does not guide LLM on what to do next or suggest valid input ranges.