factorial

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 the operation without mentioning potential issues like handling negative numbers, large inputs causing overflow, or performance characteristics. For a mathematical tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with a single phrase '计算阶乘', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the tool's function without 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for a mathematical function. The description alone is inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'number' documented as '要计算阶乘的整数' (integer to calculate factorial). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as valid ranges or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '计算阶乘' (calculates factorial) states the mathematical operation but is vague about scope and context. It doesn't specify what type of factorial (e.g., integer, for non-negative numbers) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'calculate' which might perform similar operations. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity.

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 versus alternatives like 'calculate' or other mathematical functions. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints (e.g., input range), or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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