quadratic_reportCalculates discriminant, roots, vertex, and starting x-window for quadratic functions to support graphing practice on TI-84 calculators.
Compute discriminant, roots, vertex, and a starting x-window for graph practice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes | ||
| c | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the complete set of computed results, which is meaningful for a pure function, but says nothing about degenerate inputs (a=0), complex vs. real roots, precision, output format, or error behavior — real concerns for a quadratic solver.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the result set stated up front. It is arguably undersized given the documentation gaps, but not wasteful.
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?
For a simple 3-parameter stateless calculator with no output schema, the description covers what comes back but leaves the input contract and edge-case behavior undocumented. Adequate at a minimum-viable level, not complete.
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% and the description never mentions the three parameters. A knowledgeable agent can infer a, b, c are the quadratic coefficients from the tool name, but the description does not confirm the convention, sign order, or handling of non-numeric input, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
A concrete verb ("Compute") plus an enumerated set of resource-like outputs (discriminant, roots, vertex, x-window) makes the tool's function unmistakable. The siblings (summary_statistics, get_official_links) are unrelated domains, so differentiation is trivially satisfied, though the description never says so.
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?
"for graph practice" hints at an educational context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative. The agent must infer invocation conditions entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.