calculate_lift_force

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It clearly explains the calculation, input parameters with units, and return value structure (lift_force and dynamic_pressure). It does not mention side effects, but as a pure computational tool, this is appropriate. The transparency is high 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: formula, Args, Returns, and Example. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the brevity is appropriate for the complexity of the calculation. No redundant text, and the example aids understanding without being overly verbose.

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 no output schema, but the description fully specifies the return dict with fields lift_force and dynamic_pressure, including units. The example also shows expected results. Given the simplicity of the tool (pure calculation), the description provides complete information for correct usage.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates excellently by detailing each parameter with units and a default for fluid_density. The Args section lists velocity, wing_area, lift_coefficient, and fluid_density with explanations, and the example provides concrete values. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 calculates lift force using the standard formula L = (1/2) ρ v² C_L A and references Bernoulli's principle and wing aerodynamics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_drag_force by focusing on lift, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for lift force calculations through its formula and example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., calculate_drag_force) or when not to use it. However, the example provides context for typical usage.

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