divisorCount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool counts divisors for positive integers, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: what happens with negative or zero inputs (schema allows negative integers), performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. Perfectly 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 mathematical function with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value format, edge cases (like input 0 or 1), mathematical definition of 'divisors', or how it relates to sibling tools. The context signals show 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, making the minimal description inadequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions '正整数' (positive integer) which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic integer type with range -2147483648 to 2147483647. However, it doesn't explain the parameter 'n' explicitly or provide examples, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 '计算正整数的因子个数' (count the number of divisors of a positive integer) clearly states the verb ('计算' - calculate/count) and resource ('正整数的因子个数' - divisors of a positive integer). It distinguishes from sibling 'divisorList' which likely lists divisors rather than counting them. However, it doesn't specify the mathematical method or edge cases.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'divisorList' (which appears to be a sibling tool) or other mathematical functions. The description implies it's for counting divisors of positive integers, but doesn't explicitly state when this is preferred over listing divisors or other operations.

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