subtract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation but doesn't mention potential edge cases (e.g., floating-point precision, handling of negative results), error conditions, or what the output format will be. For a mathematical operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this simple mathematical operation.

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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, doesn't address edge cases or error conditions, and provides minimal guidance about usage context. The simplicity of the operation saves it from a score of 1.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions '两个数字' (two numbers) which maps to the two parameters, but doesn't specify which is minuend/subtrahend or add any semantic meaning beyond what's obvious from the tool name. This provides minimal value over the bare 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 '执行两个数字的减法运算' (perform subtraction of two numbers) clearly states the verb (subtract) and resource (two numbers). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'complex_subtract' or 'matrix_subtract' which handle different data types.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that this is for simple numeric subtraction (as opposed to complex or matrix subtraction available in sibling tools), nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or limitations.

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