solve_logic_reasoning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool produces a draft, not a final answer, but does not mention safety, side effects, permissions, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified, lacking critical details that would earn its place. A single sentence is too sparse for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 complexity (2 parameters, required question_text) and the presence of an output schema, the description still fails to explain what inputs the tool expects or what the draft contains. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must add meaning to parameters, but it does not mention 'question_text' or 'options' at all. The agent gets no guidance on what these parameters represent.

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 builds a 'structured logic-reasoning solving draft' and explicitly says it is 'not a final answer', providing a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_logic_analysis_scaffold, which may produce similar outputs.

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 'not a final answer' hints that this tool is for intermediate steps, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist that could overlap in function.

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