AxArgmin_generate_code

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

No annotations provided, so description fully owns transparency. It discloses that the tool returns executable code and an explanation, and notes that execution is separate. Could mention no side effects or permissions needed.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded and to the point. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy.

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 complexity (code generation for multiple problem types) and lack of output schema, the description covers key points: purpose, return value, and relationship to sibling. Could elaborate on input format for problem_description, but schema handles that.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states it generates Python code for numerical problems using the argmin library, lists supported problem types explicitly, and distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_code.

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?

Explicitly mentions that code must be executed separately using execute_code. Implicitly distinguishes from other code generators via argmin focus, but could add more explicit when-not-to-use pointers.

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