abs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While '计算' (calculate) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens with non-numeric input), performance characteristics, or whether it works with integers, floats, or complex numbers. It provides only the basic operation without context.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple mathematical function 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 mathematical tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (absolute value as a number), error conditions, or mathematical properties. While the operation is conceptually simple, the description lacks context about implementation details that would help an agent use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions '数字' (number) which aligns with parameter 'a' of type number, but doesn't explain what 'a' represents, valid ranges, or special cases (e.g., negative numbers, zero, infinity). With 1 parameter and 0% schema coverage, this minimal information is insufficient.

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 '计算数字的绝对值' (calculates the absolute value of a number) clearly states the verb ('计算' - calculate) and resource ('绝对值' - absolute value). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the mathematical operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar mathematical functions like 'abs' vs 'cbrt' or 'sqrt'.

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. With many sibling mathematical tools (e.g., 'sqrt', 'cbrt', 'sin', 'cos'), there's no indication of when absolute value calculation is appropriate versus other mathematical operations or when other tools might be better suited for related tasks.

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