cuboid_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. It states the tool calculates volume and surface area, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's a pure function, if it has side effects, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 in Chinese: '计算长方体的体积和表面积'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a straightforward mathematical tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (a simple geometric calculation), no annotations, no output schema, and self-explanatory parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage, behavior, or output format, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding without external 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 description doesn't mention parameters at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so it adds no meaning beyond the input schema. However, the parameters (length, width, height) are self-explanatory for a cuboid calculation, and with 0 parameters documented in the schema, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't need to compensate heavily for simple, intuitive parameters.

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: '计算长方体的体积和表面积' (calculates the volume and surface area of a cuboid). It specifies the verb '计算' (calculate) and the resource '长方体' (cuboid) with the outputs '体积和表面积' (volume and surface area). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rectangle_calculation' or 'sphere_calculation', which are also geometric calculators.

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 prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'rectangle_calculation' (for 2D rectangles) or 'sphere_calculation' (for spheres). The user must infer usage based on the name and description alone.

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