sympy_interval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention what happens with invalid inputs (e.g., start > end), return type, or whether the interval is a SymPy object. The description is completely opaque.

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 brief (one sentence) but at the expense of clarity and informativeness. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential details; here it is under-specified.

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 complexity of a mathematical interval tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool creates, how parameters affect the result, or what the output is.

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 100% description coverage with basic parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Start value'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 interval.' is minimal and does not specify the type of interval (e.g., SymPy Interval) or differentiate from other set-related sibling tools. It barely goes beyond a tautology of the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like sympy_finite_set, sympy_union, or sympy_intersection. The description lacks any context for tool selection.

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