calculate

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 only states what operations are performed without mentioning error handling (e.g., division by zero), input constraints (e.g., numeric types), output format, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded: a single sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (basic math operations with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, input validation, or result formatting. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters: 'operation' (运算类型), 'a' (第一个数字), and 'b' (第二个数字). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the operation types, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '执行基本数学运算（加、减、乘、除、幂、取模）' which translates to 'Perform basic mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, power, modulo).' This specifies the verb ('perform') and resource ('basic mathematical operations') with a list of specific operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like factorial or logarithm, which handle more specialized mathematical functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like factorial, logarithm, sqrt, or trigonometry, nor does it specify contexts where basic operations are preferred over more specialized ones. There's no information about prerequisites, limitations, or common use cases.

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