solve_expression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the purpose but does not disclose behaviors such as whether all roots are returned, how crossovers are handled, whether solutions are symbolic or numeric, or what happens when no solution exists. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with two illustrative examples. Every word earns its place, and it avoids any filler or duplication of schema information.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the result looks like or cover edge cases (e.g., multiple roots, no solution, non-polynomial expressions). For a tool with only 2 parameters and no param descriptions, this minimal context leaves the agent under-informed about expected behavior and return format.

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 examples clarify that 'expr' is an equation string, but there is no mention of the 'var' parameter or its purpose (custom variable name). This leaves a key parameter undocumented, and the description adds only partial meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Solve' with a clear resource (equations) and distinguishes the tool by mentioning 'root or crossover' with concrete examples. This differentiates it from siblings like solve_linear (which specifically handles linear equations) and evaluate_expression (which evaluates rather than solves).

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 usage through examples ('Solve for a root or crossover') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like solve_linear or z3_check. It gives clear context but no exclusions or alternative tool names, so it only meets the 'implied usage' bar.

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