generate_derivation_report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists inputs and output. It does not state whether the tool modifies any state, requires a session, or how it handles invalid inputs or optional verification. This leaves the agent without important context about side effects or error behavior.

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 well-structured as a docstring with a clear one-sentence purpose, a concise Args list, and a Returns line. It front-loads the primary action and contains no unnecessary words, making it appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers basic inputs and output format, but given the nested object parameters and numerous sibling tools, it lacks important context: no usage guidance, no detail on the report's structure, and no mention of whether verification appears in the output. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare types: it names each parameter and gives brief hints, such as given and results being dictionaries mapping symbols to values. However, 'steps' is only vaguely described as 'Derivation steps' without specifying the expected structure of each step object. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 generates a complete derivation report in Markdown. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('derivation report'), and the format is defined, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_latex_derivation and generate_sympy_script.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an active derivation session, or when not to use it. The word 'complete' hints at final reporting, but no direct comparison to siblings is given.

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