bisection_method

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the bisection method but doesn't explain key behaviors: that it requires the function to have opposite signs at the bounds, that it's an iterative method with convergence guarantees under certain conditions, what happens when max_iterations is reached, or what format the output takes. This is inadequate for a numerical method 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a numerical method tool with 6 parameters (4 required), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the mathematical assumptions, parameter meanings, convergence criteria, error handling, or output format - all critical for proper use of a bisection method implementation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'function_type', 'coefficients', 'left_bound', 'right_bound', 'tolerance', or 'max_iterations' mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't compensate for this complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 purpose: '使用二分法求解方程在区间内的根' (Use the bisection method to find the root of an equation within an interval). It specifies the verb ('求解' - solve/find) and resource ('方程' - equation/root), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'newton_method' which serves a similar mathematical purpose.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'newton_method' or other root-finding approaches. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites exist (e.g., function must be continuous with opposite signs at bounds).

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