Spr run calc

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false/idempotent=false, so the description carries the behavioral load and does so richly: scenario enumeration, solving inverse required source pressure, drains always open, closed valves excluding pipes, governing nozzle and pump check. It does not mention permissions or side effects on stored data, so not a 5, but it far exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and organized as mode design = ... / mode calc = ... with a trailing rule-lookup pointer. The middle sentence is a deeply nested run-on that is hard to parse, but nearly every clause carries real 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by telling the agent where results live (spr_get_results, detail lines by line number) and what the run produces (governing nozzle, pump check). Adequate for calling the tool correctly; only permissions/state-change disclosure is missing.

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 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds genuine meaning on top: it defines mode design vs calc, explains inverse as 'required source pressure' with a parenthetical definition, and clarifies scenarios as 'all' plus one per zone. This goes beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run the hydraulic calculation') and clearly differentiates its two operating modes (design vs calc). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by routing result-reading to spr_get_results, so an agent can tell it apart from spr_pump_sizing/spr_design_review without opening a schema.

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?

Explains what each mode produces and which is default, and names spr_get_results as the follow-up tool with the 'next round' timing caveat. It gives clear context for choosing a mode, but offers no explicit when-not or exclusion guidance.

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