derivation_integrate

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 '帶人類知識記錄' (with human knowledge recording) and includes notes/assumptions/limitations parameters, hinting at step recording. However, it does not disclose side effects on the current expression, session requirements, or return behavior beyond '積分結果' (integration result).

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 structured docstring with a one-line summary and an Args/Returns list. It is succinct and front-loaded, though it contains a minor extra blank line. Every sentence is purposeful.

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?

With 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers most parameters but fails to mention session_id or the requirement for an active derivation session. The return value is summarized, but the output schema likely provides details. The omission of session context is a notable gap for an AI agent navigating the derivation workflow.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by defining variable as the integration variable, lower/upper as optional bounds for definite integrals, and the human knowledge fields (description, notes, assumptions, limitations). It omits session_id, which appears in the schema but is undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: '對當前表達式積分' (integrate the current expression), which clearly states the tool's function. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like derivation_differentiate (differentiate) and derivation_simplify (simplify).

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 gives useful context by noting that lower and upper are optional and needed for definite integrals, implying when to use them. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as derivation_differentiate or derivation_simplify, so usage is mostly inferred from the verb.

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