primeFactorization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool decomposes positive integers into prime factors, but doesn't describe output format (e.g., list of factors, exponents), handling of edge cases (e.g., n=1, negative numbers), performance characteristics, or error behavior. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's mathematical nature, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral details needed for reliable use. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information. It implies 'n' should be a positive integer but doesn't clarify semantics beyond the schema's type and range. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '将正整数分解为素因数的乘积' (decompose positive integers into prime factors). It specifies the verb (decompose) and resource (positive integers), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'isPrime' or 'divisorList', which is why it doesn't reach 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., input must be positive), exclusions (e.g., not for non-integers), or comparisons to siblings like 'isPrime' for primality testing or 'divisorList' for listing all divisors. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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