除法工具

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic operation but lacks details on error handling (e.g., division by zero), performance, or other behavioral traits. It does not contradict annotations, but it is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.

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 that front-loads the purpose and outcome with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 low complexity (basic arithmetic), 2 parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks error handling details, which is a minor gap for a division 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 description adds meaning by specifying that the parameters are 'two numbers' to be divided, which clarifies the input schema's properties 'a' and 'b'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it does not detail parameter roles (e.g., dividend and divisor).

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 action ('divide') and resources ('two numbers'), and specifies the outcome ('return result'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on division rather than addition, multiplication, or subtraction. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation in the text.

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 the sibling tools (add, multiply, subtract). The description implies usage for division operations but offers no context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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