boolean_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'step-by-step verification,' which indicates a stepwise process, but does not explain specifics such as output format, side effects (likely none), or permissions. This is some useful context but not rich behavioral transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('evaluate boolean expressions') before the behavioral qualifier. It contains no redundancy or 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?

The tool has a simple, single-parameter schema, but no output schema or annotations. The description hints at step-by-step verification but does not specify what the return value looks like, which might be necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly. It is adequate but leaves a gap.

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 describes the sole parameter 'expression' with an example, achieving 100% description coverage. The tool description does not add beyond the schema for this parameter, so a baseline of 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 evaluates boolean expressions with a specific verb ('evaluate') and resource ('boolean expressions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like date_calculate or object_count, which handle different domains. The phrase 'step-by-step verification' further narrows the purpose.

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 context: when a boolean expression needs evaluation. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools like systematic_verify, which could be a broader verification alternative. This is minimal viable with implied usage only.

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