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 physics principle ('Energy of rotation'), providing the exact formula, and detailing the return structure. It doesn't mention computational limits or error handling, but covers the core behavior thoroughly 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?

Perfectly structured with formula first, conceptual explanation, parameter definitions, return specification, usage tips, and a concrete example. Every section earns its place without redundancy, and information is front-loaded with the most critical formula at the beginning.

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 2-parameter calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, formula, parameter semantics, return format, usage guidance, and practical example. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by clearly defining both parameters with units (kg⋅m² for moment_of_inertia, rad/s for angular_velocity) and their role in the formula. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 specific verb 'calculate' and resource 'rotational kinetic energy', providing the exact formula KE_rot = (1/2) I ω². It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_kinetic_energy' by specifying this is for rotational energy only, with explicit differentiation about spinning objects versus translational motion.

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 'Tips for LLMs' section provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Total KE = translational KE + rotational KE' clarifies this tool calculates only the rotational component, and 'Rolling object has both types of kinetic energy' indicates when to combine with other tools. The example further illustrates proper usage context.

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