table

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does state the core behavior: producing values for f(x) and optional g(x) over a step range. However, it leaves important behavioral details implicit, such as whether endpoints are inclusive, how angle_mode affects trig expressions, and how step direction or zero step is handled.

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 compact and well-structured with a purpose line, parameter list, and example. All content earns its place and the key information is front-loaded, avoiding unnecessary prose.

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 moderate complexity (6 params, no annotations, but an output schema) and the description covers the basic recipe as well as an example. It is viable but has gaps: it does not explain angle_mode options, endpoint inclusivity, or expression grammar, which may leave the agent guessing in edge cases.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining expression as a function of x, start/end/step as a numeric range, expression2 as optional, and angle_mode as a setting. The example (expression='2*x', start=0, end=2, step=1, expression2='x^2') makes the usage concrete, though angle_mode values are not elaborated.

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 states the tool generates f(x) and optionally g(x) values over a range by step, with 'expression in x; start; end; step' plus 'optional expression2'. This clearly conveys the core action and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as evaluate or summation.

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 opens with 'When:' but the text merely restates what the tool does ('generate f(x)... values from start to end by step') rather than specifying when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling-comparison guidance are provided.

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