power

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. It only states the calculation without mentioning potential issues like handling of large numbers, negative bases with non-integer exponents, overflow, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation-like mathematical tool.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this simple mathematical operation and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling), output format details, and usage guidelines, making it insufficient for reliable agent invocation despite the simple operation.

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%, but the description adds meaning by naming parameters a and b and specifying their roles (base and exponent). However, it doesn't provide details like valid ranges (e.g., b can be negative or fractional) or examples, leaving gaps compared to the schema's minimal type information.

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a的b次方' (calculates a to the power of b) clearly states the mathematical operation with specific parameters a and b. It distinguishes from siblings like 'multiply' or 'sqrt' by specifying exponentiation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (none present in siblings).

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 only states what it does, not when it's appropriate compared to other mathematical operations in the sibling list (e.g., 'nthRoot' for roots or 'multiply' for multiplication).

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