symbolic.diff

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real operational context: a 5-second execution limit, the requirement for the sympy extra, and the exact conditions under which `numeric` is null (no variables, residual symbols after substitution, or numeric_eval=false). That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded, then parameter meaning, then null conditions, then runtime/dependency constraints. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be spelled out, yet the description usefully clarifies the `numeric` field's null semantics. Timeout, dependency, and parameter bounds complete the picture; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: `var` is the differentiation variable, `order` is 1-20 with default 1, `variables` is the substitution map, and `numeric_eval` disables numeric output. Only `expression` is left unexplained, which is self-evident from the tool's purpose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: computes an n-th order symbolic derivative via sympy, and optionally returns a numeric Decimal string at a substituted point. This is clearly distinguishable from the numeric-derivative siblings (math.diff_central, math.diff_five_point) by the word '기호' (symbolic), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the presence of `variables` and `numeric_eval` suggests when numeric output is wanted, and the null conditions hint at fallback behavior. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to math.diff_central or symbolic.solve as alternatives.

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