factor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It vaguely mentions a 'Standard result dictionary' without detailing its structure. It does not state limitations (e.g., only works for polynomial/rational expressions over rational numbers) or reveal failure modes. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.

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 highly concise with a docstring-like format including 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It uses example values to illustrate usage without unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and only one parameter, the description covers the essential inputs and purpose. However, it lacks details on expected behavior (e.g., error handling for invalid expressions) and does not reference the output schema or explain the return format beyond 'standard result dictionary'.

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 sole parameter 'expression' is described as 'SymPy-compatible polynomial or rational expression' with examples, which adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and helps the agent understand valid inputs.

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 it factors mathematical expressions over rational numbers. The verb 'Factor' and the specification 'over the rational numbers' provide specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'simplify' or 'factor_int', which could cause confusion for an AI agent.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that integer factorization should use 'factor_int' or that simplification might be more appropriate for other manipulations. The agent is left to infer usage without explicit instructions.

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