root_find_bisection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the bisection method is 'robust and guaranteed', hinting at reliability and convergence, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits: it does not specify output format, error handling (e.g., if signs at endpoints are not opposite), iteration limits (though max_iter is in schema), or that it requires a continuous function with a root in [a,b]. For a numerical method tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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: the first part clearly states the purpose, and the parenthetical additions ('robust and guaranteed') and domain/category tags are brief. However, the domain/category information ('Domain: calculus, Category: general') is somewhat redundant and could be integrated more smoothly, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (a numerical root-finding algorithm with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context: parameter meanings, behavioral details (e.g., convergence criteria), output format, and error conditions. The domain/category tag adds minimal value, leaving the tool inadequately described for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters (func, a, b, tol, max_iter) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics—it does not explain what 'func' should be (e.g., a string expression), that 'a' and 'b' are interval endpoints with opposite signs, or the roles of 'tol' (tolerance) and 'max_iter' (maximum iterations). This leaves all parameters undocumented, failing 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find root of a function using the bisection method (robust and guaranteed)'. It specifies the verb ('Find root'), resource ('a function'), and method ('bisection'), distinguishing it from other root-finding tools like 'root_find_newton' and 'root_find_secant' in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from those siblings in the description text itself, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions the method is 'robust and guaranteed' and includes a domain/category tag ('Domain: calculus, Category: general'), which implies usage in mathematical contexts. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites (e.g., function must be continuous with opposite signs at endpoints), or comparisons to alternatives like Newton's method. No exclusions or clear context are stated.

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