calculate

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds useful context about return forms (exact/high-precision when unitless) and cautions about conversion factors, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—purpose, dimensional guidance, and return behavior—with no wasted words.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: evaluation, dimensional handling, and return forms. It misses details on precision and angle_unit, but those are secondary and reasonably inferable from schema defaults. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation in most scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for expression (explicit *), variables (unit-bearing strings), and output_unit (always set). However, it omits semantics for precision and angle_unit, leaving those to schema defaults and names, which is only partial compensation.

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 evaluates one arithmetic/scientific expression safely, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like solve (equations) and convert_units (unit conversion). The focus on expression evaluation is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context for dimensional work, instructing to pass unit-bearing variables, set output_unit, and avoid manual conversion factors. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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