Physics MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It explains the mathematical formula, provides default values for optional parameters, describes what the calculation returns (buoyant force and displaced mass), and includes a practical example showing how to interpret results. It doesn't mention error conditions or performance characteristics, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 and efficiently organized: purpose statement, formula, parameter documentation, return values, and practical example. Every section adds value, with no redundant information. The mathematical formula is presented clearly, and the example demonstrates real-world application.

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 physics calculation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers the purpose, formula, all parameters with semantics, return values, and includes a comprehensive example showing input/output interpretation. This gives the agent everything needed to correctly invoke and understand the tool.

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 detailed parameter explanations. Each parameter gets units (m³, kg/m³, m/s²), typical values (water=1000, air=1.225), ranges (submerged_fraction 0.0-1.0), and defaults. This adds significant meaning 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: 'Calculate buoyancy force using Archimedes' principle.' It specifies the exact physical calculation (buoyant force equals weight of displaced fluid) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on buoyancy rather than other physics calculations like drag force or centripetal force.

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 through the example: 'Example - Checking if a 1kg ball will float.' This implicitly suggests usage for buoyancy/floating calculations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling physics tools.

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