log

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 mathematical operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for negative values or base=1), precision, return format, or computational complexity. For a mathematical tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple mathematical function.

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 complexity (logarithm function), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error conditions, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent to guess behavioral aspects. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured guidance, this is 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. It mentions '指定底数' (specified base) which implies the 'base' parameter, and '对数' (logarithm) implies the 'value' parameter, but doesn't explain their roles, valid ranges (e.g., base > 0, base ≠ 1), or mathematical relationships. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 mathematical operation: '计算以指定底数的对数' (calculates the logarithm with a specified base). It specifies both the verb (calculate) and resource (logarithm), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ln (natural log) and log10 (base-10 log). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from these siblings beyond the base specification.

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 ln or log10. It doesn't mention typical use cases (e.g., base-2 for binary calculations, base-e for natural logs) or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the mathematical function alone.

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