factor_expression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It demonstrates an input-output transformation but does not disclose whether the operation is pure/deterministic, what happens for unfactorable expressions, or any error or assumption behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence plus an example, with no wasted words. It communicates the core action immediately and uses the example efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity, one required string parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description plus example is nearly complete for correct invocation. The main gap is lack of sibling routing, which is partly a usage-guideline concern rather than invocation completeness.

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 add parameter meaning. It does so with a concrete example (``x**2 - 1`` -> ``(x - 1)*(x + 1)``), showing the expected expression syntax, though it does not formally document allowed variables or operators.

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 states a specific verb ('Factor') and resource ('symbolic expression'), and the example clarifies the exact transformation. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools such as simplify_expression or expand_expression because factorization is a distinct symbolic 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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like simplify_expression, expand_expression, or solve_symbolic_equation. The example implies that the tool is for factoring, but there is no explicit when/when-not condition or sibling routing.

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