integrate_surface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only computation but does not confirm whether the tool modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a tool performing integration, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the primary action and outputs. However, with multiple parameters and siblings, a structured format (e.g., bullet points) could enhance readability.

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 description covers the basic purpose, but lacks behavioral and usage context that would help an agent select it over siblings. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for missing return value info, but overall completeness is moderate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving examples for field_name, but the parameter descriptions already include similar guidance. No additional meaning is provided beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool integrates a field over a surface, with explicit outputs (forces, areas, fluxes). Verb 'integrate' and resource 'surface' are specific, and the mention of concrete computational results distinguishes it from siblings like slice or contour.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_stats or compare. The description does not exclude other scenarios or mention prerequisites. With many sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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