trapezoid_calculation

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 what the tool does ('calculates the area') without mentioning any behavioral traits like error handling, input validation, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no structured safety hints.

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 ('计算梯形的面积') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (simple calculation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter meanings, behavioral aspects, or output details, leaving significant gaps for effective tool use.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'top_base', 'bottom_base', and 'height' represent or their units. This leaves parameters semantically unclear.

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 '计算梯形的面积' (calculates the area of a trapezoid) clearly states the verb ('calculates') and resource ('area of a trapezoid'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'triangle_calculation' or 'rectangle_calculation' beyond the geometric shape, which slightly limits differentiation.

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, such as other area calculation tools (e.g., 'circle_calculation', 'triangle_calculation') or mathematical operations. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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