solver_constraint_satisfaction

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

No annotations are present. The description mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose side effects, safety, read/write nature, or rate limits. For a solver action, the behavioral footprint is unclear.

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 very short with no fluff, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The opening line is tautological (restates the action name), and the parameter descriptions are terse. It is acceptable in length but not in informativeness.

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 output schema exists (but its content is unknown), the description does not describe return values. Parameter coverage is minimal. For a specialized solver action, the description lacks essential context about expected inputs, outputs, and behavior.

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 description adds minimal meaning over the schema: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' are generic. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate with richer guidance, but it does not explain expected format, constraints, or examples.

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?

Description states 'Run the solver domain agent action `constraint_satisfaction`' but does not explain what constraint satisfaction means or how it differs from sibling tools like solver_schedule_optimization or solver_solve_optimization. The purpose is vague and fails to convey the specific functionality.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, context cues, or examples to help the agent decide to invoke it.

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