solve

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral details: the exact/numerical output format, the ability to choose real or complex domain, the equation format ('left = right' or zero-valued), and the capacity limit of eight equations. This contextualizes the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately concise.

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 (algebraic solving) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: input format, output form, domain selection, and capacity. It does not explicitly mention edge cases like no solutions or infinite solutions, but the output schema may handle these, making the description reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'equations' format, 'variables' as explicitly named, and 'domain' with real/complex choice. It also implies precision via 'numerical form,' but does not explicitly explain the 'precision' integer parameter, which is a minor gap.

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 'solve[s] up to eight algebraic equations for explicitly named variables,' which is a specific verb+resource action. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate and calculus by focusing on equation solving rather than arithmetic or calculus operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when solving algebraic equations for named variables, with domain selection as required. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so there is no direct when-not-to-use guidance.

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