matrix_inverse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the computation but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it handles only numeric matrices, error behavior for singular matrices, computational complexity, or output format. For a mathematical operation with potential failures, this lack of transparency 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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.

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 of matrix inversion (which can fail for singular matrices) and the lack of annotations (0% coverage) and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address error handling, input constraints, or output format, leaving the agent without necessary context for reliable use.

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 adds no parameter information beyond the generic term 'matrix'. It doesn't specify that the matrix must be square, numeric, or invertible, nor does it explain the array structure (e.g., 2D array representation). With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 '计算方阵的逆矩阵' (computes the inverse of a square matrix) clearly states the verb ('计算' - compute) and resource ('方阵的逆矩阵' - inverse of a square matrix). It distinguishes from siblings like matrix_determinant or matrix_transpose by specifying the inverse operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that the input must be a square matrix (though implied by '方阵'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., matrix must be invertible), error conditions, or comparisons with other matrix operations like matrix_determinant for checking invertibility. The description assumes context without explicit usage instructions.

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