Simplify Expression

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses heuristic behavior, the edge case of dropping constraints like x != 0 in 'x/x' simplifying to 1, and the tool's limitations (no expansion/factoring). This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise, front-loaded with the action, and uses every sentence meaningfully. The note with a concrete example ('x/x' simplifies to 1) and explicit non-behaviors is efficient and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, limitations, and parameter semantics, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that free variables stay symbolic while values in 'variables' are folded in as constants, clarifying the intended interaction of the two parameters. This goes slightly beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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's function: 'Simplify a mathematical expression algebraically (collect like terms, fold constants).' It specifies the resource (mathematical expression) and the operation, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'evaluate' and 'derivative' by indicating it does not expand products or factor polynomials.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for algebraic simplification) and what not to expect ('does not expand products or factor polynomials'). It implies behavior with variables ('values passed in 'variables' are folded in as known constants') but does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use evaluate for numeric results,' so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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