circle_calculation

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. The description only states what the tool calculates but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like error handling, precision, units of measurement, or what specific properties beyond area and circumference are included. For a mathematical tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. For a mathematical calculation tool that likely returns specific values, the description should at minimum clarify what properties are calculated, what units are used, and what the output format looks like. The current description leaves too much to inference.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with only one parameter 'radius' documented as a number. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying that radius is needed for circle calculations. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate more by explaining parameter meaning or constraints, but it only provides minimal context.

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: calculating circle properties like area and circumference. It uses specific verbs ('计算' meaning 'calculate') and identifies the resource ('圆的面积、周长等属性' meaning 'circle's area, circumference, and other properties'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ellipse_calculation' or 'sphere_calculation', which prevents a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might be needed, or how it differs from similar mathematical calculation tools in the sibling list. The agent must 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.