Equilibrium moisture content (EMC) from temperature and RH using the Hailwood–Horrobin sorption model (Simpson 1973 coefficients, desorption branch — WH-2021 Ch.4 Table 4-2). Optional reverse mode: target MC → required RH at the given temperature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | emc | |
| branch | No | desorption | |
| rh_pct | No | Relative humidity, 0–100 (emc mode) | |
| temp_c | Yes | Air temperature, °C | |
| target_mc_pct | No | Target MC % (reverse mode) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It names the Hailwood–Horrobin model, Simpson 1973 coefficients, the desorption branch, and the reverse mode, which is substantial transparency for a calculator tool. It does not state output units or defaults for mode/branch, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The core calculation is stated first, and the optional reverse mode is added as a clear second sentence.
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 has two modes and a branch parameter, making it moderately complex, yet the description omits output units, default mode/branch values, and explicit mode-dependent parameter requirements. The schema partially compensates with parameter descriptions and enums, but the description alone is not fully 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 60%, so the description needs to add some meaning beyond the schema. It does relate temperature and RH to EMC, and target MC to required RH in reverse mode, but it does not explain the branch parameter's adsorption option or explicitly clarify which parameters are required in each mode.
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 computes equilibrium moisture content from temperature and RH using a specific model, and it also names the reverse mode. It is specific about the resource and inputs, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling moisture_content tool.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided: an agent can infer it is for computing EMC from temperature and RH, or RH from a target MC in reverse mode. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.