limit_expression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The terse statement 'Compute the limit of an expression' offers no insight into edge cases, error conditions, or side effects. It does not mention handling of one-sided limits, infinity, or symbolic results, which are only implied by schema parameters.

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, clear sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. While minimal, it is appropriately concise for the tool's core purpose.

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 a straightforward computational operation, and the schema covers parameters, with an output schema present. However, the description alone does not clarify when to choose limit_expression over similar symbolic tools like series_expansion or evaluate_sage. Given the rich schema and output schema, a score of 3 reflects adequacy but with room for more contextual guidance.

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 provides thorough descriptions for all five parameters, including point, direction, variable, session, and expression, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('Compute') and names the resource ('limit of an expression'), clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes from sibling calculus tools like differentiate_expression and integrate_expression by the mathematical concept. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with series_expansion or other limit-related tools.

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 guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. With many sibling tools, the absence of usage context makes selection harder.

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