calculate

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. While it lists operations, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., division by zero, sqrt of negative numbers), precision limits, input constraints, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with multiple operations and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that lists all operations without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (multiple operations with different parameter requirements) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases, output format, or usage distinctions from siblings, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable tool invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the operations that map to the 'operation' enum, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage (e.g., that 'b' is optional for 'sqrt', or how 'power' interprets 'a' and 'b'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Perform basic arithmetic operations' followed by a specific list of operations (add, subtract, multiply, divide, power, sqrt, modulo). It uses a specific verb ('perform') and identifies the resource ('arithmetic operations'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'solve_equation' or 'trigonometry' which might also involve 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'solve_equation' for algebraic problems, 'percentage' for percentage calculations, or 'trigonometry' for trigonometric functions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the operation list alone.

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