divide

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 only states what the tool does (division) without mentioning critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., division by zero), input constraints (e.g., numeric types only), or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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: '执行两个数字的除法运算'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 simplicity (basic arithmetic), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error cases (e.g., division by zero), output format, or behavioral traits, which are essential for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in various scenarios.

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, so the description must compensate. It implies two parameters ('两个数字' - two numbers) but doesn't name them (a, b) or explain their roles (e.g., dividend and divisor). This adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 due to the low coverage.

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: '执行两个数字的除法运算' (performs division of two numbers). It specifies the verb (division) and resource (two numbers), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'complex_divide' or 'modulo', which is why it doesn't reach 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 sibling tools like 'complex_divide' for complex numbers or 'modulo' for remainder operations, nor does it specify any context or prerequisites for usage.

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