slope_intercept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully names the two output forms, but for a pure computation tool it omits relevant behavior such as the undefined-slope case when x1 equals x2. It is deterministic and side-effect-free, so the remaining gap is modest.

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?

A single sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause (input source and both output forms) earns its place.

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?

For a simple four-parameter math utility with no output schema, stating the inputs and the produced equation forms is close to sufficient. Only the degenerate vertical-line behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 100%, so the four point coordinates are already documented by the schema. The phrase 'from two points' loosely maps to x1/y1/x2/y2 but adds no ordering, format, or interpretation details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Find the line equation') plus the exact input ('from two points') and the two output forms (slope-intercept and standard form). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'standard_form', which produces part of what this tool already returns, leaving some ambiguity about which to pick.

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 only restates the function; it offers no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and never names or excludes any alternative such as 'standard_form' or 'midpoint_calc'. An agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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