degToRad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid inputs like non-numeric values), output format, or performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple conversion tool and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 simple mathematical tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error handling, return values, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description implies the parameter 'degrees' is a numeric angle value. However, it doesn't specify units, valid ranges (e.g., negative values allowed?), or conversion formula details. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name, insufficient to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 '将角度转换为弧度' (convert degrees to radians) clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'radToDeg' by specifying the direction of conversion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all mathematical functions in the sibling list.

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 like 'radToDeg' or other conversion tools. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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