成绩评价

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. However, it only restates that a score yields a grade evaluation, omitting details such as the grading scale (e.g., letter grades, pass/fail), output format, or error handling for out-of-range inputs. It adds little beyond the tool's name.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the tool's operation. It contains no filler or redundant phrases, making it highly concise and front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and a provided output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose clearly but omits specific details about the returned grade evaluation (e.g., possible values or criteria). The existence of an output schema lessens the need to explain return values, so this is a borderline acceptable level of completeness.

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 zero description coverage for the 'score' property. The description repeats the 0-100 integer range already present in the schema but does not elaborate on what the score represents or how it maps to evaluations. Since there is only one parameter and the description adds no new semantic context, it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of description.

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 that the tool returns a grade evaluation based on an integer score from 0 to 100. It uses a specific verb (returns) and resource (grade evaluation), and this purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_average and get_student_name.

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 calculate_average or get_student_name. It simply states the tool's function without mentioning alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers, 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.