math_scientific_calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions client-side evaluation and a safe shunting-yard parser (no eval()), which hints at safety. However, it does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, or any authentication/rate-limit requirements. The provided info is helpful but not complete.

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 includes redundant 'Menu ID: scientific_calculator' and repeats 'Scientific Calculator' from the title. The core information is concise but could be tightened by removing the menu ID. The structure is adequate but not optimal.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description provides key features (trig, log, etc.) and safety details. It mentions describe_tool for more info. However, it lacks information on return format, error handling, and supported function list, leaving some gaps for a complex evaluation tool.

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. It explains that 'expression' is a scientific expression with trig, log, etc., and 'angleMode' relates to rad/deg for trig. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not detail the exact syntax, operators, or supported functions, and directs to describe_tool for full guidance.

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 evaluates scientific expressions with trig, logarithms, exponents, factorial, modulo, and parentheses. It distinguishes itself from sibling math tools (e.g., factorial_calculator, quadratic_solver) by being a general-purpose scientific calculator. The verb 'evaluate' and resource 'scientific expressions' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for evaluating scientific expressions but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It references describe_tool for full guidance but does not compare to other math tools or specify exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied but not formalized.

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