减法工具

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 the action (subtract) and outcome (return result), but lacks details on error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance, side effects, or other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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: '将两个数字相减并返回结果'. It is front-loaded with the core action, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple arithmetic tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 subtraction), 2 parameters with a simple schema, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential purpose and outcome. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., error cases) and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps in this 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?

The description implies two numeric parameters but doesn't name or explain them beyond 'two numbers'. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines types (number) and requirements. The description adds minimal semantic value (e.g., it clarifies the operation is subtraction, not addition), but doesn't compensate fully for the coverage gap, such as by specifying parameter roles (e.g., minuend and subtrahend).

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: '将两个数字相减并返回结果' (subtract two numbers and return the result). It specifies the verb (subtract), resource (two numbers), and outcome (return result). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add' or 'divide' beyond the inherent meaning of subtraction.

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 like 'add' or 'divide'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and basic description.

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