precision_calculator

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

There are no annotations, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, performance implications, or that certain operations (e.g., sqrt) may only work with single numbers. The 'arbitrary precision' claim lacks detail.

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 very concise with a brief summary and two useful examples. However, it lacks a structured breakdown of when to use or parameter details, which would improve usability.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not fully explain return value format, constraints (e.g., operation 'sqrt' requires a single number), or edge cases. It leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 input schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the description is not required to add much. The examples illustrate valid inputs, but no additional meaning is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies it as a high-precision calculation tool with arbitrary precision, and the examples show specific operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like 'basic_arithmetic' or 'expression_evaluator' beyond mentioning precision.

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 only states what it does, not when to prefer it over other math tools listed as siblings.

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