Physics MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does this well. It explains the physics principle behind the calculation ('normal force provides all centripetal force'), provides practical context about how parameters affect results ('Faster speed → steeper banking angle'), and includes a complete example with realistic values. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating this is a pure calculation with no side effects.

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 well-structured with formula, purpose explanation, parameter definitions, return format, practical tips, and a complete example. While comprehensive, some sections like the NASCAR example and detailed physics explanation could be considered slightly verbose for a pure calculation tool. However, all content adds value for understanding.

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 calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It includes the mathematical formula, parameter semantics with units, return format specification ('Dict containing angle_radians and angle_degrees'), practical examples, and physics context. This fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for all three parameters: 'velocity: Speed in m/s', 'radius: Turn radius in meters', and 'gravity: Gravitational acceleration in m/s² (default 9.81)'. It also includes units and default values, adding significant value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific formula (θ = arctan(v² / (rg))) and explains it calculates 'the ideal angle where no friction is needed to maintain the turn at a given speed.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_centripetal_force or calculate_normal_force by focusing specifically on banking angle calculation for banked curves.

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 when to use this tool ('For a banked curve, the ideal angle where no friction is needed to maintain the turn at a given speed') and includes practical examples (highway exit ramp, NASCAR tracks). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling physics calculation tools.

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