radToDeg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While '转换' (convert) implies a pure mathematical function, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about precision, error handling, input constraints (e.g., valid ranges), or output format. For a mathematical tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. For a simple conversion tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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 conversion tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (degrees as a number?), doesn't mention the conversion formula or precision, and doesn't address edge cases. The description should provide more context given the lack of structured documentation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'radians'. It doesn't specify what units are expected, valid ranges, or special cases. The description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but fails to do so.

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: '将弧度转换为角度' (convert radians to degrees). It uses a specific verb ('转换' - convert) and specifies the resource (radians to degrees). However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'degToRad' (degrees to radians), which performs the inverse operation.

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 a sibling tool 'degToRad' that performs the inverse conversion, the description should ideally indicate this is for converting FROM radians TO degrees, not the reverse. No context about when this conversion is needed is provided.

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