calc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only says a result is returned. It does not disclose behavior for division by zero, invalid operators, numeric limits, or whether failures are surfaced as errors — meaningful gaps for a mutation-free but error-prone computation tool.

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 input list preceding the outcome, which is appropriately front-loaded. It is slightly generic ('사칙연산' without enumerating operators) but wastes no 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?

For a simple three-parameter pure computation tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Error and edge-case behavior is left implicit, which is the only notable gap.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates 'two numbers and an operator' without adding format, range, or operator-set detail beyond the enum already present in the schema.

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?

States a specific action (returns arithmetic results) with concrete inputs (two numbers and an operator), so an agent immediately knows what it computes. No sibling tool overlaps with it, so sibling differentiation is unnecessary, but the description doesn't mention that it covers exactly +, -, *, / beyond the name 'calc'.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or edge-case handling. Usage is only implied by the description's mention of inputs and a returned result.

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