log10

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: it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., for non-positive inputs), numerical precision, or return format. For a mathematical tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in edge cases.

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 function. It's front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by defining the mathematical operation.

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 low complexity (single mathematical function) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but misses details like error conditions or return values. For a simple tool among many mathematical siblings, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding usage.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter 'value' is the number to take the logarithm of, but doesn't specify constraints (e.g., must be positive), units, or examples. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type definition, meeting the baseline for 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 '计算以10为底的对数' clearly states the tool's purpose: it computes the base-10 logarithm of a given value. This is a specific mathematical operation that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ln' (natural logarithm) or 'log' (which might be ambiguous). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the input parameter 'value' or contrast with other logarithmic functions beyond the title.

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 'ln' for natural logarithms or 'log' (which might be base-10 or another base), nor does it specify use cases (e.g., scientific calculations, decibel scaling). 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.