mathematica_expand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description is minimal and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as supported expression types, output format, side effects, or limitations. This is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 very concise at one sentence. While brevity is valued, it comes at the cost of informativeness. It is not overly long, but could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description is too minimal to be complete for a tool with many siblings and a single parameter. More context about the type of expansion and expected input would be necessary.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'expression', which is a required string. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. With schema coverage at 0%, the description should clarify expected input format or constraints.

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 'Expand a mathematical expression.' This identifies the action and resource. However, it does not specify what type of expansion (e.g., algebraic, polynomial) which could help distinguish from siblings like mathematica_simplify or mathematica_factor.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sheer number of sibling mathematical tools, explicit usage context or examples of when 'expand' is appropriate would significantly improve the description.

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