cone_calculation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '计算' (calculate) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is a pure computation, what units are used, precision considerations, or error handling. It lacks details about the return format or any computational constraints.

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 purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

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 computational tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (just volume and surface area, but in what format?), doesn't mention parameter requirements, and provides no context about the mathematical formulas or assumptions used in the calculations.

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, and the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. While the parameter names ('radius', 'height') are self-explanatory for cone calculations, the description provides no additional semantic context about expected units, valid ranges, or the relationship between these parameters in the calculations.

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: '计算圆锥体的体积和表面积' (calculates the volume and surface area of a cone). It specifies both the resource (cone) and the operations (volume and surface area calculations). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sphere_calculation' or 'cylinder_calculation' beyond the different geometric shape.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over other geometric calculation tools like 'sphere_calculation' or 'cylinder_calculation', nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for its use.

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