calc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'evaluates' an expression, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention safety, side effects, or limitations. For a simple calculator, this is acceptable but lacks clarity on what happens with invalid expressions.

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 sentence, immediately stating the tool's purpose. No redundant information is present, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 simplicity, the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, and precision. The sibling tools suggest this is one of few tools, but completeness could be improved with a note on return type.

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% for the single 'expression' parameter, but the description adds meaning by specifying it is an arithmetic expression and listing operators (+, -, *, /, **, %). This compensates partially, but the parameter's type and format remain under-specified.

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?

Description clearly states the tool evaluates exact arithmetic expressions, listing supported operators. It distinguishes from siblings 'scribe' (likely writing) and 'sysinfo' (system info) by focusing on 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 says 'use for any calculation' which is an implicit guideline but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent with minimal usage guidance.

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