rectangle_calculation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions calculating properties but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what specific properties are returned (e.g., area, perimeter, diagonal), the format of output, error handling for invalid inputs, or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 concise with a single sentence in Chinese, efficiently stating the purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, the vagueness of '等属性' slightly reduces clarity, but it's not overly verbose.

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 (a calculation tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what properties are calculated, output format, and parameter meanings, making it insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 2 parameters (length and width) with 0% description coverage, meaning no schema descriptions exist. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what length and width represent, their units, valid ranges, or how they relate to the calculations. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states the tool calculates rectangle properties like area and perimeter, which is a clear purpose. However, it's somewhat vague with '等属性' (and other properties) without specifying what those might be, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling geometry tools like circle_calculation or triangle_calculation beyond the shape type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies rectangle-specific calculations, the description doesn't mention when it's appropriate compared to other geometry tools or general calculation tools like multiply or add. No explicit when/when-not statements are provided.

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