integral_simpson38

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format (dict with integral, error estimates, table) and important constraints (b > a, n multiple of 3, epsilon optional). This goes beyond minimal requirements, though it does not detail failure modes if constraints are violated.

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-organized, with a single summary line and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence provides useful information, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's numerical complexity, six parameters, and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description covers all necessary operational details (method, constraints, input meanings, return structure). It does not elaborate on theoretical details like truncation error derivation, but that's not required for correct invocation.

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 has zero descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: func_str (math expression), a/b (limits with b>a), n (multiple of 3), epsilon (optional error-bound point), and precision (rounding digits). This provides clear semantic meaning beyond the raw 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 tool's function: approximating a definite integral using the composite Simpson 3/8 rule. This specific method name distinguishes it from siblings like integral_simpson13 and integral_trapecio, making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 mentions key constraints (n must be a multiple of 3, b > a) but does not explicitly explain when to prefer this method over alternatives like Simpson 1/3 or trapezoid. Usage context (e.g., smooth functions, odd/even subintervals) is only implied, not stated.

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