solve_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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the underlying goal (finding roots/crossovers) and gives examples, but does not explain return behavior, handling of multiple roots, numeric vs symbolic solving, error cases, or output structure.

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 two illustrative examples. It is highly concise with no filler words, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's basic intent.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a nontrivial mathematical task, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, expected expression syntax details, variable handling, and edge cases, making it insufficient for robust agent decision-making.

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%, and the description fails to explain the 'var' parameter or the required format beyond examples. The examples imply that 'expr' is a symbolic equation string, but this is not explicitly stated, and 'var' is left entirely to the schema title and default.

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 solves for a root or crossover, with concrete examples like 'x**2 - 4 = 0' and '2*x + 1 = 7'. It is specific about the mathematical task, though the term 'crossover' is ambiguous and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like solve_linear or calc_exact.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings, such as solve_linear, simplify_expression, or evaluate_expression. There are no stated trade-offs, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives, so an agent cannot reliably choose it over related tools.

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