calculator_describeThe inputs this calculator takes (with units, ranges and defaults), the outputs it returns, and the assumptions and tables behind it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), which is transparent, but it does not mention any side effects, read-only nature, or other behavioral traits. The description is adequate for a describe tool but lacks explicit safety or side-effect information.
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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. It covers the essential content without unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness and structure.
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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete overview of what the tool offers. It specifies the types of information (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables) but does not detail the format or structure of the output, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its function.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds no parameter-related information. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.
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 that the tool describes the inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables of the calculator. The title specifies the calculator, and the description is specific about what it covers, distinguishing it from calculate which likely performs calculations.
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 implies this tool is used to obtain information about the calculator, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools like calculate or enquiry_describe. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.