step_by_step_algebra

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does so well: it discloses that the tool returns the full solution process, not just the answer, and enumerates the kinds of manipulations included. It does not discuss edge cases or input constraints, but the main behavioral trait for a step-by-step solver is clearly stated.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds valuable output detail without redundancy.

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?

The description plus output schema give a workable picture for a simple two-parameter tool, but there are gaps: no parameter format guidance and no usage differentiation from solve_equation. Given the low schema coverage and sibling ambiguity, it is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters. It mentions 'equation' and 'variable' indirectly, but never states that expression should hold the equation and variable should name the unknown, nor what syntax is expected.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: solves an equation, and adds the distinguishing detail 'step-by-step, showing intermediate algebraic manipulations.' It further enumerates returned elements (factoring, simplification, final roots), which separates it from siblings like solve_equation.

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 implies this tool should be used when a worked solution with intermediate steps is desired, but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as solve_equation or simplify_expression. No when-not-to-use or selection conditions are given.

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