cylinder_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 computation, but doesn't specify units, precision, error handling, or output format. For a mathematical tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese: '计算圆柱体的体积和表面积'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 mathematical nature, 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, units, calculation formulas, or output structure (e.g., whether it returns both values as a single object). For a calculation tool, this lack of detail could lead to misuse or incorrect assumptions by the agent.

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 2 parameters (radius, height) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. It doesn't explain what 'radius' and 'height' represent or their expected units (e.g., meters, centimeters).

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: '计算圆柱体的体积和表面积' (calculate the volume and surface area of a cylinder). This specifies both the verb (calculate) and resource (cylinder), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sphere_calculation' or 'cone_calculation' beyond naming the geometric shape, which keeps it from 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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'circle_calculation' or 'sphere_calculation'. The agent must infer usage based on the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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