evaluate_math

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'safely' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., sandboxing, supported operations, limits). No mention of error handling, precision, or whether advanced functions are available.

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: two sentences plus a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. No superfluous words; every word 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?

While an output schema exists, the description still needs to cover essential context for safe use. It lacks information about error behavior (e.g., division by zero), input validation, and the scope of expressions accepted. This is inadequate for a potentially risky tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a parameter 'expression' with an example, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it omits details like supported operators, constants, or functions, leaving gaps.

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 'Evaluate a mathematical expression' and provides an example. It distinguishes from siblings like 'quadratic_solver' by being general-purpose. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for specific calculations (e.g., 'quadratic_solver', 'calculate_bmi'), the description does not explain the criteria for choosing this general evaluator. Implied usage is vague.

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