symbolic_expand

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 only states the action and gives an example, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., non-factorable inputs), scope limitations, or whether it modifies any state. The behavior is unclear for edge cases.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no superfluous words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides an illustrative example. Every word earns its place.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for safe usage. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it handles invalid expressions, or whether it side-effects. For a tool with one parameter and simple function, more detail is expected to ensure correct invocation in all cases.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'expression' already described as 'Expression, e.g. '(x+1)*(x-1)''. The description adds the same example, providing no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 'Expand factored expression' and provides a concrete example. The verb 'expand' and resource 'factored expression' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like symbolic_integrate or symbolic_limit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as symbolic_integrate or symbolic_partial_derivative. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.

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