sympy_integral

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

With no annotations, the description adds the key behavioral trait 'unevaluated' but does not elaborate on the nature of the Integral object, return format, or any side effects. Annotations could have covered this, but their absence places burden on description.

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 (one sentence) with no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 existence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It could mention the relationship to sympy_integrate explicitly, but overall completeness is high.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the score is at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Create an Integral object (unevaluated)' clearly specifies the action (create) and the resource (integral object), and the 'unevaluated' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling tool sympy_integrate which evaluates integrals.

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 when an unevaluated integral is needed, contrasting with the evaluating sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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