Evaluate GeoGebra Command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals the API and return fields (ok/result/labels/error) but omits side effects: evaluating commands can create or modify objects in the session, potentially changing state. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a command execution tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, context, mechanism, and expected output in a compact manner. 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?

No output schema, no annotations, and moderate complexity. The description mentions return metadata but not the structure of 'result' or 'error', nor does it explain session prerequisites, command formatting, or state changes. The tool is under-specified for reliable use despite clear purpose.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'command' accepts one or more commands, but does not specify how multiple commands are separated (e.g., newlines or semicolons) or how sessionId is obtained/used. The parameter names alone are insufficient for correct invocation given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Evaluate' and identifies the resource as 'English GeoGebra input-bar commands', distinguishing it from sibling tools like ggb_eval_cas (CAS commands). It also names the underlying API (evalCommandResult) and return metadata, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 is provided. It mentions 'in a session' but does not state that a session must first be created via ggb_create_session, nor does it differentiate from ggb_eval_cas or ggb_query_commands. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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