solve_linear

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It discloses the input format and the core solving behavior, but it does not mention limitations like 'only linear systems', behavior for inconsistent systems, or error cases. This is a moderate gap.

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, information-dense sentence followed by an example. Every element earns its place: the purpose, the parameter formats, and a concrete illustration. No redundant content.

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 covers all input specifications needed to invoke it correctly. It doesn't explicitly state 'linear' in the description (though the tool name and example imply it), but this is a minor omission given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining that `system` is a semicolon-separated list of equations and `variables` is comma-separated, with a worked example. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 states a specific action ('Solve a system of equations') and provides a concrete example showing multiple equations and variables. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like solve_expression or evaluate_expression, which handle single expressions.

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 explicit formatting rules for both parameters and an example, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for single equations use solve_expression'.

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