engineering.lmtd

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new traits: the equal-ΔT limit case returns ΔT₁ instead of dividing by zero, and ln is evaluated at 30 significant digits. Missing only a note on how invalid inputs (≤0) are rejected.

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?

Formula is front-loaded, then constraints, then scope exclusions and precision — no filler sentences. Every clause (equal-value limit, F exclusion, 30-digit ln) carries distinct information.

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?

Output schema exists so return format need not be explained, and edge cases plus scope limits are covered. The one remaining gap is that the parameters are typed as strings without saying whether numeric expressions are accepted.

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 coverage is 0% and the two string params carry only bare titles, so the description must compensate — it does, defining them as the temperature differences at the two ends in K or °C differences, both strictly positive. It does not fully resolve how the names 'hot_inlet'/'cold_outlet' map to the two ends in counterflow.

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?

Names the exact physical quantity (LMTD for heat exchangers) and states the formula, so the agent knows precisely what is computed. Clearly distinct from neighbors like engineering.convective_heat_transfer or engineering.thermal_resistance.

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?

Tells the caller they must themselves choose the two end temperature differences according to parallel vs. counter flow, which is real usage guidance. It also explicitly excludes the shell-and-tube correction factor F, so the caller knows when this tool is insufficient — but no sibling alternative is named for the F-corrected case.

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