symbolic.solve

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: variables are substituted before solving, only real solutions are returned as 50-digit Decimal strings, complex and symbolic solutions appear only in the symbolic field, numeric_eval=false empties solutions, and a 5-second timeout applies. Annotations already cover safety, but the description adds essential operational context.

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 core action is front-loaded and every clause adds information. The single dense paragraph is efficient, though its length makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted structure would be.

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 complex symbolic-solving operation, the description covers input format, substitution behavior, output shape distinctions, numeric_eval effects, timeout, and dependency requirements. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It explains equation format, the role of var, pre-substitution of variables values, exact rational interpretation of decimal literals and variables, and the effect of numeric_eval on solutions — covering all four parameters with useful semantics.

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 ('sympy 로 방정식을 기호 풀이한다') and immediately clarifies input forms (lhs = rhs or single expression assumed =0). This is clearly distinguishable from numeric solvers and from sibling symbolic.diff.

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 implies when the tool is appropriate (symbolic solving via sympy) and notes the sympy extra requirement, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as core.solve_for, math.polynomial_roots, or geometry.matrix_solve. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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