calc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the core function (returns arithmetic result) but lacks disclosure of edge cases such as division by zero, handling of invalid inputs, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation that could fail.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not mention potential errors or limitations (e.g., division by zero), which is important for a tool with no annotations. It is adequate but could be more complete.

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% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description merely paraphrases the parameters ('두 숫자와 연산자') without adding extra meaning, format details, or clarifications beyond what the schema already provides.

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: taking two numbers and an operator and returning the arithmetic result. It uses a specific verb ('입력받아 ... 반환합니다') and identifies the resource (calculator). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like geocode or get-weather, which are unrelated.

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 the tool should be used for arithmetic calculations, and sibling tools are unrelated, so there is no ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'for non-arithmetic operations use another tool'), so it falls short of a 5.

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