evaluate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It mentions stack commands (clear, dup, swap) and the show_stack parameter, implying a persistent stack, but it never explicitly states whether stack state persists across calls or how errors like division by zero are handled. This ambiguity is a significant 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 description is appropriately sized, beginning with the primary purpose and then listing operators and commands. There is no fluff, though the line breaks make it slightly less dense than necessary. Each sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 value details are covered. However, the tool appears to involve a shared stack (given the sibling 'clear' and the show_stack parameter), and the description does not explain how the stack persists across calls or how evaluate interacts with clear. This missing context makes the description incomplete for a stateful tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the allowed operators and commands, which is not present in the schema, and gives an example of a valid expression. However, it does not elaborate on the show_stack parameter beyond the schema, so it does not fully extend parameter understanding.

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 'Evaluate an RPN expression' and provides a concrete example ('3 4 +' returns 7). It also enumerates operators and stack commands, distinguishing it from the sibling 'clear' tool.

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 implies usage by giving an example and listing supported operators/commands, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'clear' or mention any prerequisites. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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