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 by explaining the calculation formula, return format (dict with reynolds_number and flow_regime), and interpretation criteria (Re<2300=laminar, etc.). It doesn't mention error handling or computational limits, 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?

Well-structured with formula first, purpose second, then organized sections for Args, Returns, and Example. Every sentence adds value - no redundancy. The example is comprehensive but appropriately detailed for clarity.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides complete context: formula, parameter details with units, return format with interpretation criteria, and a working example. No significant gaps remain for agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations: units (m/s, meters, kg/m³, Pa·s), meaning (characteristic length as pipe diameter, etc.), and example values (water=0.001, air=1.8e-5). This adds 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 the specific formula (Re = ρvL/μ) and explains it determines flow regime (laminar, transitional, turbulent). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on Reynolds number calculation, unlike other physics/engineering calculations in the list.

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 (to determine flow regime) and includes a detailed example with water in a pipe. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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