aaddyy_physics_solver

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses the credit cost (~2 credits) and that output is a step-by-step explanation, but says nothing about latency, failure modes, rate limits, or what happens when an image is unreadable or a category is mis-specified.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by supported scope and cost. No filler.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. An agent is not told which parameters are required, how image vs text input must be supplied, or what the returned solution will look like.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at inputType (image/text) and problemCategory, but language, solutionFormat, unitsPreference, explanationLevel, and includeConstantsAndEquations are entirely undocumented anywhere, leaving six enums with no semantic guidance.

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+resource ('Solve physics problems') and scopes it with the supported subject areas (mechanics, E&M, thermodynamics, optics). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearly identical sibling aaddyy_math_solver, which an agent would have to disambiguate on its own.

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?

Accepting 'image or text input' implies the two usage modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over aaddyy_math_solver, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the domain list.

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