modulo

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 error handling (e.g., division by zero), performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with non-integer inputs. 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 Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple mathematical operation and front-loaded with the essential information.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It explains the mathematical purpose but lacks crucial context about parameter roles, error conditions, return format, and behavioral characteristics that would help an agent use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description adds some value by implying 'a' and 'b' are the two numbers for the modulo operation. However, it doesn't specify which is dividend vs divisor, expected data types beyond 'number', or handling of edge cases. The description partially compensates but doesn't fully address the schema coverage gap.

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 '计算两个数的余数' (calculates the remainder of two numbers) clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('计算' - calculate) and resource ('两个数的余数' - remainder of two numbers). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'divide' or 'gcd' by focusing specifically on the modulo 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many mathematical operation siblings (like 'divide', 'gcd', 'lcm'), there's no indication of when modulo is appropriate versus other division-related operations or when it might be preferred in specific contexts.

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