evaluate_sage_streaming

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reliably conveys that the tool streams print() output and returns the final result 'as usual,' but it omits details about session interaction, error handling, or side effects. This gives a basic understanding without being comprehensive.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and streaming behavior, and the second sentence clarifies the return. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered without description. However, the description lacks contextual details such as whether it uses a persistent session (given siblings like reset_sage_session) or when to choose this over the non-streaming evaluate_sage. The description is adequate for the simple schema but leaves these 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters (code and timeout_seconds) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 executes SageMath code and specifically highlights the streaming of intermediate print() output line by line. This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'evaluate_sage', which likely does not stream, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool's usage when streaming intermediate output is desired, especially with the phrase 'stream intermediate print() output line by line.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like evaluate_sage, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than direct.

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