calculate_cgpa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: whether the result is a plain arithmetic mean or credit-weighted, what happens with an empty list, or whether the operation is pure/side-effect-free. For a calculation whose correctness depends on the aggregation rule, this is a meaningful gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence with no padding. The appended 'Args:' block largely duplicates the input schema rather than adding information, which is minor waste but not harmful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and as a pure calculation the tool needs no safety or auth disclosure. However, the aggregation semantics of the single required input remain ambiguous, leaving the agent guessing at the one thing that matters for correct 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 0% and the single parameter is only echoed back as 'List of SGPA values', which adds almost nothing beyond the schema's array-of-numbers definition. The description does not specify expected value ranges, ordering, whether credits are accounted for, or minimum list length.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Calculate CGPA') and the input basis ('from semester SGPA values'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool produces. Sibling tools (get_upcoming_deadlines, search_notes) are unrelated, so no differentiation is needed, but the description also doesn't name the tool's domain context beyond the calculation itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite statements, and no mention of what kind of input this calculation expects (e.g., a grading system's 0-10 scale). The agent must infer everything about invocation context from the name alone.

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