divisorList

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '列出' (list) implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify output format, ordering of results, handling of edge cases (like n=0 or negative n despite '正整数' suggesting positive integers), or performance characteristics. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 Chinese sentence that states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this simple mathematical function and gets straight to the point.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the divisor list returns in (array, string, etc.), doesn't address edge cases, and provides minimal guidance for proper use. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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. It mentions '正整数' (positive integer) which adds semantic context beyond the schema's generic integer type with wide range (-2147483648 to 2147483647). However, it doesn't explain what happens with non-positive inputs or provide examples of valid values.

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 action ('列出' - list) and the resource ('正整数的所有因子' - all divisors of a positive integer). It specifies the mathematical operation precisely, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like divisorCount (which likely counts divisors rather than listing them).

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. There's no mention of sibling tools like divisorCount, primeFactorization, or isPrime that might be relevant for related mathematical operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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