triangle_calculation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions calculating '面积、周长等属性' (area, perimeter, and other properties), hinting at multiple outputs, but doesn't specify what '等属性' (other properties) includes, error conditions (e.g., invalid side lengths), or computational methods. This leaves gaps for a mutation-free calculation tool.

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's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it appropriately concise for a simple calculation tool.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format (e.g., what properties are returned), error handling, and parameter semantics, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic inference.

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 description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'side_a', 'side_b', and 'side_c' represent (e.g., triangle sides in any order), units, constraints (e.g., positive numbers, triangle inequality), or examples. This fails to address the undocumented parameters adequately.

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: '根据三边长计算三角形的面积、周长等属性' (calculate triangle properties like area and perimeter from three side lengths). It specifies the verb ('计算' - calculate) and resource ('三角形' - triangle), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'circle_calculation' or 'rectangle_calculation' beyond the triangle focus.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., valid triangle inequality), exclusions, or comparisons to other geometry tools in the sibling list. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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