compute_combustion

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does state the output types (Combust, DeeplyCombust, None) and mentions degrees of separation, which gives some transparency. However, it omits how retrograde flags affect the results, any error conditions, or side effects. Since it discloses some core behavior, a 3 is warranted.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and outcome. It contains no filler and is immediately scannable.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how the retrograde flags influence the computation, nor does it specify the exact return structure (e.g., array vs. object). The mention of output categories helps but leaves the agent guessing about required inputs beyond the sun and the other longitudes.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level detail. The schema covers 58% of parameters, leaving all five retrograde booleans undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain the role of these booleans or clarify the meaning of 'degrees of separation' in relation to any specific parameter. This is a significant gap.

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 ('Compute') and clearly identifies the resource ('combustion state for each planet') and the output categories. It also cites a source (BPHS Ch.7 vv.28-29). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compute_drishti or compute_shadbala, though the unique function is evident.

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 when to use the tool: when combustion state is needed. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. The reference to BPHS provides contextual justification but not comparative guidance against siblings.

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