factorize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully gives the success and error return shapes and an example, but says nothing about expression syntax assumptions, variable handling, or domain limits. This is adequate but clearly incomplete for full behavioral burden.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by compact Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every part is relevant and appropriately sized for a simple math function.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description provides the return structure for success and error plus a concrete example. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it omits routing context relative to siblings like expand and lacks edge-case behavior notes.

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?

The sole required parameter is documented as "the expression to factorize as a string," which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. The example further demonstrates valid syntax (e.g., `x**2 + 2*x + 1`), though no formal grammar or edge-case constraints are given.

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?

"Factorizes an expression" gives a specific verb+resource and is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate from sibling symbolic tools like expand or solve_equation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with alternatives such as expand or solve_equation. The provided example implies usage but does not state how to choose this tool over its siblings.

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