complex_subtract

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 does mathematically without any information about error handling, precision, performance characteristics, or what the output format will be. For a computational tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. For a simple mathematical operation, this level of conciseness is appropriate and efficient.

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 this is a computational tool with 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the parameter structure, doesn't describe the output format, and provides no behavioral context. For a tool that performs mathematical operations, users need to understand how complex numbers are represented and what the result format will be.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about what these parameters represent. The description mentions '两个复数' (two complex numbers) but doesn't explain that complex numbers are represented as separate real and imaginary components (a_real, a_imag, b_real, b_imag). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 '计算两个复数的差' (calculates the difference of two complex numbers) clearly states the verb ('计算' - calculate) and resource ('两个复数的差' - difference of two complex numbers). It's specific about what mathematical operation it performs, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'complex_add' or 'subtract' beyond the 'complex' qualifier.

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 are multiple sibling tools for mathematical operations (including 'complex_add', 'subtract', and general arithmetic tools), but the description doesn't indicate when complex subtraction is specifically needed or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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