newton_interpolate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states what the tool does but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if input arrays are mismatched), performance characteristics, numerical stability, or output format. For a numerical interpolation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence: 'Perform Newton polynomial interpolation using divided differences (Domain: numerical, Category: interpolation).' It efficiently conveys the core action and context without unnecessary elaboration. However, the parenthetical domain/category could be integrated more smoothly, and the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity of a numerical interpolation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details such as parameter meanings, constraints, error conditions, and what the tool returns (e.g., interpolated value, polynomial coefficients). The description does not adequately compensate for the missing structured information.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (x_points, y_points, x) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics—it does not explain what x_points and y_points represent (e.g., arrays of data points), what x is (e.g., the point to interpolate at), or any constraints (e.g., arrays must be equal length, x must be within range). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Perform Newton polynomial interpolation using divided differences.' It specifies the mathematical method (Newton polynomial interpolation with divided differences) and provides domain/category context (numerical, interpolation). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lagrange_interpolate' or 'linear_interpolate', which are also interpolation tools on this server.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the domain (numerical) and category (interpolation), but does not indicate specific scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to other interpolation methods available (e.g., 'lagrange_interpolate', 'linear_interpolate', 'cubic_spline_interpolate'). This leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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