stall_speed_calculator

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 explains the function, behavior (no exceptions, errors returned as strings), and output format. However, it does not disclose any side effects or resource usage, which are unlikely for a calculator.

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 structured as a docstring with sections for args and returns, making it readable. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 7 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers parameter meanings, return format (formatted string with specific speeds), and error handling. It lacks edge cases or performance notes but is sufficient for a calculator tool.

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%, but the description includes a docstring that explains each parameter's purpose and units, e.g., 'weight_kg: Aircraft weight in kg.' This adds substantial semantic meaning beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 starts with 'Calculate stall speeds for different aircraft configurations,' which clearly states the action and target resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like landing_performance or takeoff_performance, which have different scopes.

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 stall speed calculations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like takeoff_performance or landing_performance. There is no mention of use cases or exclusions, leaving it to the agent to infer context.

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