calculate

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. The description only states 'basic arithmetic calculations' and gives no information about side effects, safety, exact operation handling (e.g., division by zero), return format, or any other behavioral trait. This minimal disclosure is inadequate for a tool with no structured annotation support.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is highly concise and front-loaded, though it borders on being under-specified. One sentence earns its place, but it could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 low complexity (3 simple parameters) and full schema coverage, the description might seem adequate at first glance. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to explain return values or provide usage context. It also doesn't distinguish this generic 'calculate' from the more specialized financial calculation siblings, making the overall description incomplete for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (a, b, operation) with a full enum for operation, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states. Per the calibration baseline, a score of 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 uses a clear verb ('Perform') and resource ('basic arithmetic calculations'), so the primary action is understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_financial_ratios' or 'convert_temperature', both of which are also calculation-type tools. Thus, it meets the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' criterion.

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. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, exclusions, or relationship to sibling tools. Since no context is given beyond the one-sentence purpose, the agent is left without direction on selection.

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