Runs add, subtract, multiply, or divide on two numbers and returns the computed result.
두 숫자에 대해 add, subtract, multiply, divide 연산을 수행합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | 첫 번째 숫자 | |
| b | Yes | 두 번째 숫자 | |
| operation | Yes | 수행할 연산 (add, subtract, multiply, divide) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | 계산 결과 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about divide-by-zero handling, error responses, numeric precision, or whether non-numeric input is rejected. For arithmetic, divide-by-zero is a notable edge case the agent would benefit from knowing about, and it is undisclosed.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the operation and operand count front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it uses minimal space to restate information the schema already contains.
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 explanation is unnecessary, and all parameters are documented at 100% coverage. What is missing is edge-case behavior such as division by zero and error/exception semantics, which the description does not address.
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 description coverage is 100% with an enum on operation, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only the fact that two numeric operands are involved, which is already implied by the parameter descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific operation (연산 수행) on a specific resource (두 숫자) and enumerates the four supported operations, so an agent knows exactly what the tool computes. Sibling differentiation is not a concern here since greet/geocode/generate-image are unrelated domains, but the enumeration largely mirrors the schema enum rather than adding scope detail.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the description only states capability. Usage is strongly implied by the tool name and semantics, but there is no explicit routing advice or exclusion of cases (e.g., large-number or non-arithmetic inputs) leaving the agent to infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.