matrix_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does mathematically, with no information about constraints (e.g., matrix dimensions must match), error conditions, performance characteristics, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration - it's appropriately sized for a basic 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?

For a mathematical operation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the mathematical constraints (matrices must have same dimensions), error handling, return format, or how this differs from similar operations. The context demands more complete documentation than what's provided.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'two matrices' which corresponds to the two parameters, but adds no semantic details about expected format (e.g., 2D arrays), constraints (e.g., must be same dimensions), or data types. This minimal information doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 '计算两个矩阵的和' (calculates the sum of two matrices) clearly states the verb (calculate sum) and resource (two matrices). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'matrix_subtract' or 'complex_add' beyond the mathematical operation name.

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 are multiple matrix operations (matrix_subtract, matrix_multiply, matrix_determinant) and general mathematical operations (add, complex_add) in the sibling list, but the description doesn't indicate when matrix addition is appropriate versus other operations or tools.

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