darboux_sum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions calculation but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, error handling, or output format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 calculation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, making it inadequate for fully understanding the tool's operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Function to integrate', 'Variable of integration'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Calculate the Darboux sum of a function', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'calculate' and the mathematical concept 'Darboux sum', but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'riemann_sum' or 'integral', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'riemann_sum' or 'integral', nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description provides only a basic statement of purpose without contextual usage information.

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