expand_expression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. However, the description only restates the tool's name and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as the mathematical operations performed (e.g., distributive law), input format expectations, output characteristics, or potential limitations. It adds essentially no information beyond the tool title.

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, short sentence with no waste or filler. It is front-loaded and easy to read. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, providing minimal content for an agent to judge utility, but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only one parameter, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It fails to explain the difference between this and sibling tools like 'simplify_expression' or 'factor_expression', leaving the agent without adequate context to select or invoke the tool correctly in a decision-making scenario.

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 has one parameter 'expression' with a description 'Expression to expand', and the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description merely repeats this, adding no extra semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameter, and the description does not contradict or explicitly enrich it.

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 'Expand a mathematical expression' clearly states the verb (expand) and resource (a mathematical expression), and the action is distinguishable from sibling tools like simplify_expression or factor_expression. However, it doesn't explicitly detail what 'expand' entails (e.g., removing parentheses, expanding powers), nor does it differentiate itself from very similar operations beyond the verb itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that expansion is useful when you need to transform a factored or parenthesized expression into a sum of terms, or that simplify_expression is a better choice for reducing complexity. With over 30 sibling tools, some usage direction is critical.

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