eda_sys_math_calculate_perimeter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a pure read-only calculation by saying 'calculatePerimeter' and 'returns: 周长', but it does not explicitly state that no document state is modified, nor does it mention edge cases, failures, or whether the polygon must be closed. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the function 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 compact and front-loaded with the signature, followed by a one-line Chinese summary and return type. There is no filler or repetition, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing semantic detail.

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 tool with no output schema and an opaque args array, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits the required shape of TSYS_MathPolygonInput, the expected units of the returned perimeter, and any assumptions about polygon closure or coordinate order. An agent would likely need external documentation to call this tool correctly.

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 names the argument as 'polygon: TSYS_MathPolygonInput', which adds the type name not visible in the generic args array schema. However, it does not explain the structure of TSYS_MathPolygonInput (e.g., whether points are coordinate pairs or an array of vertices), so an agent still lacks the information needed to construct the parameter correctly. Schema coverage is nominally 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function in Chinese ('计算多边形周长') and gives the exact signature with return type number. The name and description identify perimeter calculation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like eda_sys_math_calculate_area, though it does not explicitly call out the sibling distinction.

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 such as eda_sys_math_calculate_area or eda_sys_math_get_bbox. The usage is only implicit from the tool name and one-line description, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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