print_latex_expression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions printing LaTeX format and variable assumptions, but does not clarify what 'stored expression' means, how the expression is retrieved, what happens if the key is invalid, or the format of the output (e.g., plain text, file). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with mutation-like behavior (printing implies output generation).

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Prints a stored expression in LaTeX format, along with variable assumptions.' It is front-loaded with the core action and includes key details without unnecessary words, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 complexity (a tool that retrieves and prints stored data), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how expressions are stored, what 'variable assumptions' entail, or the output format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'expr_key' represents (e.g., a unique identifier for a stored expression), its format, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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's purpose: 'Prints a stored expression in LaTeX format, along with variable assumptions.' It specifies the action (prints), the resource (a stored expression), and the format (LaTeX), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'print_latex_tensor' or 'intro' which might also involve printing or displaying expressions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that an expression must be stored first using tools like 'introduce_expression'), nor does it compare to siblings like 'print_latex_tensor' for tensor-specific output or 'intro' for general introductions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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