solve_equation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the accepted input conventions ('lhs - rhs' set to zero, or Eq(lhs, rhs)), which goes beyond the schema, but it does not describe the return format, failure cases, or solver limitations. This is partial disclosure, not a contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second gives the essential input syntax. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent how to encode the equation and identifies the variable. However, it lacks an example, does not fully clarify the variable parameter's expected form, and mentions no unsupported equation cases, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the equation parameter's expected format concretely and mentions the variable, but it does not specify exactly how the variable string should be provided or whether it must match a symbol in the equation. It partially compensates but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 ('solves') and a clear resource ('an equation for a given variable'), making the tool's core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the operation is distinct enough from simplify, differentiate, and integrate that an agent can infer its role.

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 gives no guidance on when to use solve_equation versus siblings such as evaluate_expression or simplify_expression. It explains how to format the equation, but offers no alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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