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. It mentions performing arithmetic and returning results, but doesn't cover critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., division by zero), performance characteristics, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves 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 in Korean that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a simple calculator tool, with zero waste.

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 arithmetic), high schema coverage (100%), and presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic operation but doesn't address potential issues like errors or limitations, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly in edge cases.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (number1, number2, operator with enum). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that the operator is for '사칙연산' (four basic operations), which aligns with the enum. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: '두 개의 숫자와 연산자를 입력받아 사칙연산을 수행하고 결과를 반환합니다' (Takes two numbers and an operator, performs arithmetic operations, and returns the result). It specifies the verb (performs arithmetic), resource (numbers), and operation type (four basic operations). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'greet' or 'time' beyond being a calculator function, which is somewhat implied but not stated.

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, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools (e.g., use 'calculator' for math vs. 'get-weather' for weather data). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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