find_root

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the goal ('find a numeric root') but does not disclose whether it returns a single root or all roots, whether a sign-change interval is required, convergence behavior, or error handling when no root exists. This is minimal transparency for a numerical algorithm.

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, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is zero surplus content; it is appropriately concise.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter descriptions, the basic invocation is covered. However, for a numerical root-finding tool, the description omits critical behavioral context (e.g., whether it returns one root, if bounds must bracket a sign change, or behavior on failure). It is adequate but has clear 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 coverage is 100%, with all four parameters having descriptions in the input schema. The description's phrase 'in a given interval' redundantly maps to lower_bound and upper_bound but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Thus, baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('numeric root of an expression in a given interval'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like solve_equation (which implies symbolic solving) and calculate_expression (evaluation). The scope is well-defined.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as solve_equation or differentiate_expression. The word 'numeric' implies approximate solving, but there is no stated exclusion or preferred context. The description only restates the purpose without usage direction.

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