sum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool calculates a sum but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for non-numeric elements), performance (e.g., for large arrays), or output format (e.g., returns a number). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter constraints, error cases, return values, and behavioral context. For a mathematical tool among many siblings, more guidance on usage and limitations would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'numbers' of type array. The description adds minimal semantics by implying the array contains elements to sum, but it doesn't specify element types (e.g., must be numbers), constraints (e.g., no empty arrays), or examples. It partially compensates but leaves key details undocumented.

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 '计算数组所有元素的和' (calculates the sum of all elements in an array) clearly states the verb (calculate sum) and resource (array elements). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add' (binary addition) and 'product' (multiplication), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 sibling tools like 'add' (for two numbers) or 'product' (for multiplication), nor does it specify use cases like aggregating numerical arrays versus other statistical tools (mean, median). Usage is implied 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.