integral_simpson13

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses error order O(h^4), constraints that b>a and n must be even, the role of epsilon for truncation error bound, and the return type (dict with integral, error estimates, table), which is valuable context beyond a simple 'compute integral'.

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, with a one-line purpose, an Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence conveys essential information without redundancy or filler.

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 6-parameter numerical method with no output schema, the description covers all inputs, key constraints, error order, and the general output contents. It lacks exact return dictionary keys or interpretation details for the table, but remains sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 properties have only titles with no descriptions, so the description is the sole source of parameter semantics. It thoroughly explains func_str with a concrete example, defines a and b as integration limits with b>a, n as subintervals with evenness requirement, epsilon as a point for error reporting, and precision as rounding digits.

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?

Description clearly states 'Approximate the definite integral of f(x) on [a, b] with composite Simpson 1/3', using a specific verb and resource. It names the exact method (Simpson 1/3), distinguishing it from sibling integration tools like integral_simpson38, integral_trapecio, and integral_rectangulo.

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 implies usage via the method name and constraints but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or situations where Simpson 1/3 is preferred over Simpson 3/8 or trapezoidal integration.

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