matrix_determinant

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 action (calculate determinant) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for non-square or singular matrices), computational complexity, or output format. This is a significant gap for a mathematical tool with potential 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 purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (mathematical operation with potential errors), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter requirements, behavioral constraints, and output format, which are essential for correct tool invocation.

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%, and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'matrix'. It doesn't specify that the matrix must be square, its expected format (e.g., 2D array), or constraints (e.g., numeric values). The description fails to compensate for the 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 '计算方阵的行列式' (calculates the determinant of a square matrix) clearly states the verb (calculate) and resource (determinant of square matrix). It distinguishes from siblings like matrix_inverse or matrix_trace by specifying the determinant operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., matrix must be square), when not to use it (e.g., for non-square matrices), or suggest sibling tools for related operations like matrix_inverse.

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