sphere_calculation

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. While '计算' (calculate) implies a read-only computation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires any special permissions, what units are used (e.g., radius input units vs. output units), whether negative radii are handled, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a mathematical computation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 Chinese phrase that directly states what the tool does. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration. For a simple mathematical tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate and efficient.

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 simplicity (single parameter, mathematical computation), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, there are gaps in understanding the tool's behavior, error handling, and output format. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves other contextual aspects unspecified.

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 doesn't mention parameters at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, there's only one parameter (radius), and the tool's purpose inherently implies that radius is the input needed for sphere calculations. The description doesn't add specific meaning beyond what can be inferred from the tool name and purpose, but with just one parameter, the baseline is reasonable.

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: '计算球体的体积和表面积' (calculates the volume and surface area of a sphere). It specifies both outputs (volume and surface area) and the resource (sphere), making the verb+resource combination clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'circle_calculation' or 'cone_calculation' which might have overlapping geometric calculations.

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. There are many sibling tools for geometric calculations (circle_calculation, cone_calculation, cuboid_calculation, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate this is specifically for spheres or when to choose it over other shape calculation tools. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is mentioned.

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