boolean_algebra_operation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, mutation, or any operational traits—it only states a topic. This fails to inform the agent about whether the operation is read-only, what it affects, or any constraints.

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 extremely short—a single phrase. While it has no fluff, it is under-specified: it omits the variety of operations available and any context about how to use the tool. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential information, which it does here.

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?

This is a multi-operation tool (evaluate, variables, degree, is_zero, is_one, reduce) with an output schema, but the description gives no explanation of what these operations do or when to choose them. Even though the output schema covers return values, the agent lacks the conceptual context to select the correct operation or understand edge cases. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 100%, with each parameter (operation, expression, num_variables) having its own description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema's enum-like list of operations is useful but is already captured in 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 'Boolean algebra: operations on boolean polynomials' identifies the domain and resource but lacks a specific verb like 'perform' or 'compute'. It is more of a topic label than a clear statement of what the tool does, and it does not list the specific operations from the schema (evaluate, reduce, etc.), so it provides only a general sense of purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling math tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description merely names the topic without indicating which scenarios call for boolean algebra operations or how this differs from related tools like polynomial_ring_operation.

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