limit_expression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the computation and provides an example, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., undefined limits) or any requirements. The example adds some transparency, but significant gaps remain.

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 concise, consisting of one sentence and an example. It front-loads the core concept ('Asymptotic behaviour') and every word contributes value. No unnecessary filler.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the core behavior and parameters sufficiently for a mathematical function, though it omits handling of edge cases such as divergent limits or multi-variable expressions. Overall, it's a complete-enough description for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter's role in the template 'limit of EXPR as var -> point (default oo)' and provides a concrete example mapping expr and var. It also clarifies the default for point. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 computes the asymptotic limit of an expression as a variable approaches a point, with a concrete example. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like solve_expression or simplify_expression.

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 use for complexity analysis via 'settles complexity arguments' and mentions 'Asymptotic behaviour', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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