disc

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

Annotations are absent, and the description adds no behavioural details beyond the core operation. It does not disclose error handling, assumptions (e.g., univariate polynomial), side effects, or performance characteristics, which is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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, which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks any structure (e.g., sections) and could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose.

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 description is adequate for a simple math function, especially given the presence of an output schema. However, it omits details like the role of the 'v' parameter and the expected polynomial format, which would help an agent use the tool correctly in more nuanced contexts.

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 provides full parameter descriptions with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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?

Description 'Compute the discriminant of a polynomial' clearly states the verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling polynomial tools like 'resultant' or 'polroots', which compute related but different polynomial invariants.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contextual advice. The description offers no hints about typical use cases or restrictions, leaving an agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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