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. It does well by clearly describing the computational nature of the tool, specifying the return format with detailed keys, and providing a concrete example with expected results. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like numerical precision or input validation behavior.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then comprehensive analysis scope, followed by organized parameter and return value sections, and concluding with a practical example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 computational physics tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, detailed parameter semantics, comprehensive return format specification, and a practical example with expected results. No annotations are needed given this thorough documentation.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics: units for all parameters (meters, kg, m³/(kg⋅s²)), physical meanings, and a default value for gravitational_constant. The example further clarifies parameter usage with Earth-specific values.

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 specific verbs ('analyze circular orbit') and resources ('at given altitude above planet surface'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'calculate_orbital_period' by emphasizing comprehensive analysis combining multiple orbital parameters rather than just period calculation.

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 circular orbit analysis at a specific altitude), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools. The example helps illustrate usage but doesn't provide explicit exclusion criteria.

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