plot_math_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fallback behavior between Desmos API and local rendering, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral traits like performance implications, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format details, leaving gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 highly concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and fallback mechanism. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete as it lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the purpose is clear, making it minimally adequate but with significant gaps.

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, but it adds no information about parameters beyond the general context of plotting. It doesn't explain what 'formula', 'x_range', 'y_range', or 'use_api' mean or how they affect the plot, leaving all 4 parameters semantically unclear.

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's purpose: 'Generates a 2D plot' with a specific mathematical context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_formula' and 'validate_formula' by focusing on visualization rather than analysis or validation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'plot_multiple_functions'.

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 for plotting mathematical functions, with a fallback mechanism mentioned ('Tries Desmos API if available, otherwise falls back to local rendering'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plot_multiple_functions' or other siblings, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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