solve_constraint_programming

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions OR-Tools as the solver and defines parameters, but lacks details on side effects, authentication, error handling, or limitations. The return description is minimal ('variable values and feasibility status').

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 well-structured with a summary, Args, Returns, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose; slight trimming could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, no output schema, 5 params), the description covers inputs, outputs, and usage example. It explains the objective and parameters. However, it does not detail the constraint expression syntax, which may be unfamiliar to users.

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 compensate. It provides a detailed Args section explaining each parameter, including types and optional fields, plus a concrete example. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, which only has titles and types.

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 constraint programming problems using OR-Tools and lists typical use cases like combinatorial optimization and scheduling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'solve_constraint_satisfaction', which could cause confusion.

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 indicates when the tool is ideal (e.g., combinatorial optimization, scheduling) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. Usage is implied from the domain listing, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons are given.

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