Calculate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Perform a basic arithmetic calculation' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify if it's stateless, has side effects, requires permissions, or handles errors. It mentions nothing about the 'stream' parameter's behavior (progress notifications), rate limits, or output format, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence: 'Perform a basic arithmetic calculation'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the essential action and resource.

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 tool's low complexity (basic arithmetic) and the presence of a rich input schema (100% coverage) and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it fails to provide context on differentiation or behavioral details like error handling. The description covers the 'what' but lacks the 'when' and 'how' needed for full completeness in this environment.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'First operand', 'Operation to perform', 'If true, emit progress notifications'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Perform a basic arithmetic calculation' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('perform') and resource ('arithmetic calculation'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'advanced_calculate', 'batch_calculate', or 'solve_math_problem', leaving the scope of 'basic' ambiguous. The description is functional but lacks differentiation from alternatives.

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 its siblings. With tools like 'advanced_calculate', 'batch_calculate', and 'solve_math_problem' available, there's no indication of what makes this tool 'basic' or when to choose it over others. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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