ampl_display

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that file-loading statements are permitted but executed WITHOUT guard-checking, and that AMPL output redirection is not confined to the session working directory. It also clarifies the path guard scope, which is critical safety-relevant context. These disclosures go well beyond what any annotation would typically cover.

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 compact and well-structured: one clear opening sentence followed by two focused paragraphs of essential warnings. Every sentence adds value, and the text avoids repetition or unnecessary elaboration. The security caveats are important and are presented succinctly without padding.

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 the key behavioral risks (file loading, output redirection, guard scope) and mentions the warnings list in the result. With an output schema present, return values do not need explanation. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use the tool and does not explain parameter semantics, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent to operate 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 provides zero description coverage for the three parameters, so the description must compensate. However, the description only mentions 'expr' indirectly in the context of file-loading warnings and does not explain the meaning, format, or expected values of 'expr', 'limit', or 'session'. This is insufficient for agents to construct correct parameter values, especially for 'limit' and 'session'.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Evaluate an arbitrary AMPL display expression.' The phrase 'reach-anything tool' signals broad scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool ampl_eval, which likely also evaluates AMPL expressions, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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?

Usage context is only implied through phrases like 'reach-anything tool' and the warnings about file-loading and output redirection. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ampl_eval, ampl_read_files), nor any 'do not use when' exclusions. The behavioral note about guard-checking suggests this tool is for powerful but risky operations, but that guidance is not made explicit.

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