poles_and_zeros

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states a non-destructive computation operation and hints at domain support (s or z). However, it does not disclose details such as how non-rational transfer functions are handled, whether results are symbolic/numeric, or what specific output structure is returned (though an output schema exists).

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and the resource, and every word contributes meaning.

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 annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is thin. It omits critical input semantics, especially the meaning of 'variable', and provides no usage context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the input side remains under-specified.

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. The 'transfer_function' parameter is somewhat self-explanatory from the description, but the 'variable' parameter is not explained at all. The phrase 'H(s) or H(z)' hints that variable selects the domain, but this mapping is not explicit enough for reliable invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('finds') and resource ('poles and zeros of a system transfer function H(s) or H(z)'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like laplace_transform_signal or partial_fraction_decomposition, which perform different mathematical operations.

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 intended use is implied: use when you need poles and zeros of a transfer function. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. This is adequate but minimal.

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