calculator

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 'perform basic mathematical calculations' implies a read-only computation, it doesn't explicitly state whether this tool has side effects, requires permissions, handles errors (like division by zero), or has rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the operations.

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 low complexity (basic math operations) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage context. With no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral insight, but for this simple tool, it's adequate though with clear gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (operation, a, b). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 with specific verbs (add, subtract, multiply, divide) and the resource (mathematical calculations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file_operations and system_info by focusing on arithmetic operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative calculation tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 any prerequisites, limitations, or context for choosing this calculator over other methods. With sibling tools like file_operations and system_info available, there's no indication of when mathematical calculations are appropriate versus those other operations.

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