deep_solve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fresh disposable workspace' (implying isolated, side-effect-free reasoning) and 'compressed final answer' (indicating output style), but it does not disclose potential risks like long runtime, error behavior, or whether the workspace is truly ephemeral beyond the label. This adds some context but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and avoids redundancy. Every clause contributes meaning: 'ordered dependency-based steps', 'fresh disposable workspace', and 'compressed final answer' each add value without unnecessary filler.

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 tool is moderately complex (multi-step reasoning, disposable workspaces, 4 parameters) but has no output schema. The description gives a high-level process overview and the schema documents parameters, yet it does not explain what the 'compressed final answer' looks like, how verification works, or any operational limits (e.g., timeout). This leaves gaps for a tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (problem, verify, caveman, maxSteps) fully described. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Break a problem into ordered dependency-based steps, reason through each step in a fresh disposable workspace, and return a compressed final answer.' This uses a specific verb ('break', 'reason', 'return') and resource ('problem'), and differentiates it from a generic Q&A tool by emphasizing the structured, stepwise approach.

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 for when to use the tool: for problems that can be decomposed into ordered, dependency-based steps. It implies complex, multi-step reasoning is the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which is acceptable given no siblings are provided.

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