regular_polygon

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 states what the tool does (calculates area and perimeter) but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for invalid inputs like negative side lengths), computational limitations, or output format. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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: '计算正多边形的面积和周长'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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 mathematical calculation tool), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It states the purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavior, outputs, or error conditions, which are essential for an AI agent to use it correctly in context with many sibling tools.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters ('sides' and 'side_length'), the schema only provides types and constraints (e.g., integer for 'sides'). The description doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., number of sides and length of each side) or their units, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: '计算正多边形的面积和周长' (calculates the area and perimeter of a regular polygon). It specifies the verb ('计算' - calculate) and resource ('正多边形' - regular polygon) with the outputs (area and perimeter). However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'circle_calculation' or 'triangle_calculation' beyond the polygon type, which is implicit but not explicit.

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., needing a regular polygon), exclusions (e.g., not for irregular polygons), or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'circle_calculation' for circles). Usage is implied by the name and purpose 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.