find_root

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return value shape, failure behavior when no root exists, whether multiple roots are handled, or side effects on the named session/workspace, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action and key constraint, earning every word.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (numeric algorithm, interval bounds, session scoping), and the output schema exists to define return shape. Yet the description alone omits important behavioral details like failure modes and multi-root behavior, making it only partially complete even when combined with schema.

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?

All 5 parameters are already fully described in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics, only restating the concept of an expression and interval; it does not explain session or variable handling beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('numeric root of an expression'), and a scope ('in a given interval'). This distinguishes it from symbolic-solving siblings like solve_equation, as it emphasizes numeric approximation within a bounded interval.

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 phrase 'numeric root ... in a given interval' conveys a clear intended context: numerical root-finding with a bounded search range. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of an explicit usage guideline.

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