integrate_expression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of supporting both indefinite and definite integration ('definite with bounds'), but it does not clarify requirements like needing both bounds, behavior for non-integrable expressions, or the return format. This adds some value but leaves notable gaps.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It adequately covers the basic function but omits details such as handling of symbolic bounds, edge cases, or workspace session usage. For a complex symbolic integration tool, this is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 schema already covers parameter descriptions 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'definite with bounds' adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the combined effect of lower_bound and upper_bound — that providing them yields a definite integral. This interprets parameter interaction, which is not stated 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 uses the specific verb 'Integrate' and identifies the resource as 'an expression', clearly conveying the tool's function. The parenthetical 'indefinite or definite with bounds' further distinguishes the two modes and sets it apart from sibling tools like 'differentiate_expression'.

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 usage is implied by the tool name and description — if you need to integrate, you use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., differentiate_expression) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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