solve_equation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Solve an equation') and does not mention output form, handling of unsolvable equations, symbolic vs. numeric methods, or edge cases.

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 sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It efficiently covers both single equations and systems without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has an output schema and fully documented parameters, but the description lacks behavioral context such as solution format or limitations. It is adequate for basic selection but leaves gaps for a complex math tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 solves an equation or system of equations, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like solve_ode (ODEs) and find_root (root finding) by its broader equation-solving scope, though it does not explicitly specify whether solutions are symbolic or numeric.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as solve_ode or find_root. The description merely implies a general use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools.

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