solve_logic_reasoning

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It only indicates the output is a draft, not final. Missing details on side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or output structure. The behavioral disclosure is 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 a single sentence, which is concise but sacrifices informativeness. It could include key details without being verbose. The structure is adequate but not optimized for quick scanning.

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 complexity of logic reasoning and the presence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what a 'solving draft' entails, how it relates to other tools, or what the output contains. The description is incomplete for reliable tool use.

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 0%, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. The meaning of 'question_text' and 'options' is left entirely to the schema, which has no descriptions. This makes it hard for an agent to provide correct input.

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 purpose: building a structured logic-reasoning solving draft, and explicitly contrasts it with a final answer. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_logic_analysis_scaffold, which could cause confusion.

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 (e.g., get_logic_analysis_scaffold). The description lacks context for selection and does not mention prerequisites or limitations.

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