calculate_gitt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or whether the tool modifies data. The description focuses on parameters and return value, but lacks 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?

The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly, but overall good.

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 description covers all parameters, default values, and the return format. It references the data folder, which provides context. However, it does not mention prerequisites such as file existence or format, or error handling. Output schema exists, so return details are sufficient.

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 adds substantial meaning. Each parameter is explained with its purpose, default value, and units (e.g., 'Electrode thickness in cm'). The note about '.xlsx added if omitted' adds practical semantics.

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 runs the GITT method on an Excel file, specifying the verb 'Run' and the resource 'titration Excel file'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'calculate_dunn' which likely runs a different method.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'calculate_dunn'. There is no explanation of prerequisites or scenarios where this method is appropriate.

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