calculate_buoyancy

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

Without annotations, the description fully explains the calculation (buoyant force = displaced fluid weight) and returns: buoyant force and displaced mass. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits (not needed), but it provides clear behavioral context for a calculation 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?

The description is well-structured with a formula, parameter explanations, return values, and a concrete example. It is concise yet covers all necessary information without extra fluff.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains parameters, return values, and provides an example usage. The example ties everything together for practical understanding.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: volume in m³, fluid_density with typical values (water=1000, air=1.225), gravity default (9.81), and submerged_fraction range (0.0-1.0) and default (1.0). Adds units and examples.

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 it calculates buoyancy force using Archimedes' principle, with a specific formula. It distinguishes itself from sibling physics calculation tools by focusing on buoyancy, and the example further clarifies its purpose.

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 explains when to use the tool (calculating buoyancy force) and provides an example showing how to apply it to real-world scenarios like checking if an object floats. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with sibling tools.

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