compute_ignition_delay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool does not update the mixture state, a key behavioral trait. This compensates well for the lack of annotations, though more detail on required permissions or side effects could be added.

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 concise with only four sentences, each adding essential information: action, definition, use case, and a crucial side-effect note. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the tool's purpose and a key behavioral note, but given the complexity of combustion chemistry and the presence of an output schema (not shown), it is sufficient. Minor gaps: no mention of preconditions (e.g., mixture must exist) or typical simulation time ranges.

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 description coverage is 0% according to signals, meaning the description should add parameter meaning. However, the description does not elaborate on the parameters 'name' and 'max_time' beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., mixture ID and max time). This leaves a gap for an agent to understand parameter usage without schema context.

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 calculates auto-ignition delay time, defines it as the point of steepest temperature rise, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying a unique metric (dT/dt max) and application (fuel reactivity, mechanism validation).

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 for fuel reactivity characterization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like run_batch_reactor or calculate_adiabatic_flame_temperature. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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