root_find_secant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the method ('secant method') and a comparison to Newton's method, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as convergence properties, error handling, output format, or performance characteristics. For a numerical root-finding tool with 5 parameters, this lack of detail 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, with the core purpose stated first. The parenthetical notes add context without unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of 'Domain: calculus, Category: general' is somewhat redundant and could be omitted for better focus, 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 of a numerical root-finding tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral expectations, and output format. The description does not adequately compensate for the missing structured data, making it insufficient for effective tool invocation.

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 have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters, their meanings, or how they should be used (e.g., 'func' as a string representation of the function, 'x0' and 'x1' as initial guesses, 'tol' as tolerance, 'max_iter' as iteration limit). This leaves all parameters undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema 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 secant method'. It specifies the verb ('find root'), resource ('function'), and method ('secant method'), and distinguishes it from Newton's method ('like Newton but without derivative'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'root_find_bisection' or 'root_find_newton' in the sibling list, which would be needed for a score of 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 provides minimal guidance: it mentions the secant method is 'like Newton but without derivative', which implies usage when derivatives are unavailable. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like bisection or Newton's method, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit alternatives or context for selection are provided.

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