basic_math

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important details: high-precision decimal arithmetic, rounding to a configurable precision, and left-to-right evaluation of multiple operands. This goes beyond the basic operation names, though it does not address error handling (e.g., division by zero).

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple arithmetic tool, the description covers operations, precision behavior, operand count, and evaluation order. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks explicit usage guidance and error semantics, but is otherwise adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that precision controls decimal places (0-15) and that operands are applied left to right. The schema itself only describes operands as 'At least two numbers,' so the description compensates for the missing descriptions of operation and precision parameters.

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 function ('Perform basic mathematical operations') and lists the specific operations (add, subtract, multiply, divide), giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like advanced_math or expression_eval, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 such as advanced_math or expression_eval. It implies usage through the word 'basic' but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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