debug-calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'for testing,' implying a stateless, read-only operation, but does not confirm side effects, error behavior, or return format. The minimal description leaves significant ambiguity about how the tool behaves.

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, short sentence with no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's role.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention that the tool returns a result (e.g., numeric value) or handle errors. For a testing calculator, some indication of output would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% (single parameter 'expression' with a description of supported operators). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance clarity or provide usage hints for the parameter.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Simple calculator for testing,' which conveys its purpose and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling debug tools (e.g., debug-database, debug-echo) by specifying it performs calculations. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'evaluate' and could be more precise about the resource (arithmetic expressions).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug-echo or debug-parser. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or the testing context that might differentiate it. The description is purely declarative.

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