calculate_pipetting_speed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: calculating safe settings to prevent splashing and ensure precision. As a pure computation, it is implicitly non-destructive, but this is not stated explicitly. However, the described behavior is accurate and sufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part serves a purpose: verb, output, inputs, and goal. It is optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two numeric inputs, calculation), the description covers its purpose and key inputs. An output schema exists (not shown), so return value details are handled there. No missing context for effective use.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that 'fluid viscosity' is in cP, which is not evident from the schema alone. The other parameter's unit (uL) is implied by its name. While minimal, this addition provides meaningful context beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Calculates') and clearly identifies the tool's output (optimal safe feedrate and delay times) and input basis (fluid viscosity and target volume). It also states the goal (ensure precise volumes, prevent splashing). This distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 implies usage when pipetting speed needs optimization for specific fluid viscosity and target volume. No explicit when-not or alternative tools are needed since siblings are unrelated, but the context of use is clear.

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