symbolic_diff

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the order parameter is integer, how the tool handles multiple variables, or what functions are supported. The phrase 'arbitrary order' is ambiguous given the schema restricts order to integer.

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, highly concise. However, it omits critical details, making it too terse for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 tool complexity and lack of schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not cover input semantics or usage context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but input-side guidance is insufficient.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must explain parameters. It does not describe any of the four parameters (expression, variable, order, show_steps), leaving the agent without additional context beyond schema titles.

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 computes symbolic derivatives of arbitrary order. It uses a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('symbolic derivatives'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like symbolic_integrate or series.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to similar tools like symbolic_integrate.

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