Solve Sudoku Puzzle

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 primary behavior and the failure-reporting behavior, but does not mention side effects, input validity handling, or what happens if the grid is already solved. It is non-contradictory but minimal.

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 one tight sentence with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the failure-reporting behavior is appended without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description adequately defines the tool's contract for a single-parameter operation, and an output schema is available for return-value details. It could be slightly richer on edge cases such as pre-solved or partially invalid grids, but it is largely complete for this tool's complexity.

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 already documents the grid parameter thoroughly, including 9x9 shape and 0-for-empty semantics, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond 'unsolved', which is unnecessary because the schema already defines the structure.

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 a specific action ('solve') applied to a specific resource ('an unsolved Sudoku grid') and adds a failure-exit behavior ('report why it cannot be solved'). This distinguishes it from the generate and validate siblings based on the core intent.

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 implies appropriate use for grids that need solving and for diagnosing unsolvability, but it never explicitly contrasts its use with the sibling validation or generation tools. Usage context is reasonably clear, but exclusions and alternative-tool guidance are left to inference.

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