Evaluate expressions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that evaluation leaves the figure unchanged, which is stronger than the annotation alone. It omits what happens on invalid expressions or how results are returned, but the critical side-effect question is answered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the examples follow as supporting detail. The example list is slightly long but each sample demonstrates a distinct expression class (measurement, equality check, predicate, object property).

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what evaluation yields (numeric values, booleans, per-expression results) and how failures are surfaced; it says nothing about return shape or error behavior. The functional purpose and expression syntax are well covered, so the gap is limited to results handling.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'expressions' array, so the description must carry the load, and its six concrete expression examples do substantially clarify the expected GeoGebra syntax and boolean-comparison forms. It does not explain batch semantics (one result per item, evaluation order) or the 1-50 item bounds.

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?

States a specific verb (Evaluate) plus resource (GeoGebra expressions against the current figure) and explicitly scopes it as not adding objects, which is exactly what separates it from the sibling ggb_run_commands. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'WITHOUT adding objects, to verify the construction' gives a clear use context (checking/validating an existing figure rather than mutating it), implying the alternative ggb_run_commands for object creation. It never names that sibling or states when-not to use this tool, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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