fmin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly notes the 'approximate' nature and 'closed interval' constraint, but does not discuss whether the result is a local or global minimum, or how invalid inputs or non-minimizable functions are handled. This is a moderate gap, but the key computational trait (approximation) is stated.

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 extremely concise, using a structured 'When:' line, a params list, and an example. Every sentence has a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core use case.

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 has 5 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that may document return values but not parameter details. The description leaves angle_mode and tol unexplained, and misses behavioral nuances (local vs global minimum, error conditions). This is a significant completeness gap for an AI agent to invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names all four parameters but only gives context for expression ('in x'), lower, and upper (implicitly interval bounds). Angle_mode and tol are left entirely unexplained, and no detail is given on the expression format or acceptable values, which is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 that the tool computes the approximate minimum of an infix function f(x) on a closed interval. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fmax (maximum) and solve_root (roots), providing a specific verb and resource.

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 leading 'When:' explicitly frames the tool as the one to use when seeking an approximate minimum on an interval, providing clear context. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools (e.g., fmax for maximums), so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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