stdDev

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 only states the mathematical function without describing input validation (e.g., handling of non-numeric arrays), error conditions, return format, or computational characteristics (e.g., precision, performance). For a tool with two parameters and no 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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 complexity, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions '数组' (array) which aligns with the 'numbers' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'sample' parameter (likely indicating sample vs population standard deviation) or provide any details on data types, constraints, or usage examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 '计算数组的标准差' clearly states the tool's purpose as calculating the standard deviation of an array, which is a specific mathematical operation. It distinguishes from many siblings (e.g., 'mean', 'variance') by focusing on standard deviation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely related tools like 'variance' beyond the mathematical distinction.

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 when to prefer 'stdDev' over 'variance' (a sibling tool) or other statistical functions, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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