ode_heun

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mathematical method, parameter constraints, and return structure (numerical solution, exact solution when available, errors). However, it does not explain how the tolerance flag affects error computation, what happens when the exact solution is unavailable, or any numerical 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 well-organized with an explicit Args/Returns structure and no filler. It is compact yet informative, front-loading the core mathematical purpose. Minor inefficiency: the param list could be more terse, but it remains clear.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's return summary is valuable. However, there is no example of the equation string format, no mention of error-estimation behavior, and no guidance on when to choose this method over sibling ODE tools. With 7 parameters and missing output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief explanation for every parameter (e.g., 'Right-hand side f(x,y)', 'Final x (must be > x0)'). This goes beyond the schema's bare type information. It still lacks details on the exact format expected for ecuacion_str and does not mention the default rounding precision.

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 states exactly what the tool does: solves an initial value ODE using Heun's predictor-corrector method. It names the method and the mathematical form, clearly distinguishing it from sibling ODE solvers like ode_euler and ode_rk4.

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 provides in-parameter constraints (xf > x0, h positive) and clearly indicates the intended use for Heun's method, but it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternative ODE solvers or state when to prefer it over Euler or RK4. Usage is implied but not directly guided relative to siblings.

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