frontiermath_solve_problem

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'solve' without stating what the tool returns (e.g., the solution), whether it is read-only, or any prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a compute tool.

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 one sentence and front-loaded with the verb, but it redundantly lists the IDs that are already in the schema enum. Still concise with no filler beyond that redundant list.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least mention what the tool returns (e.g., the solution). It only describes the action. Given the simple parameter, more context about output or workflow is needed.

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 fully describes the single required parameter problemId with an enum of the same five IDs listed in the description. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 solves specific FrontierMath problems by ID and even lists the valid IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are topic-specific or list problems.

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 usage when a specific problem ID is already known, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like using list_problems to find IDs or topic-specific tools. Clear context yet no exclusions or alternative names.

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