bmr_calculator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently shows the exact equations used, which is excellent for a calculation tool. However, it doesn't mention edge cases (e.g., age/weight range validity) or that it assumes specific unit inputs (kg/cm) beyond what the parameter names imply. The formula disclosure is strong but could add more context on limitations.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and method. The formula is compact and efficient. It could be slightly clearer by explicitly mapping variables to parameter names, but it's appropriately sized for a simple calculator.

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 tool is simple and has clear schema constraints (all required, numbers, one enum). The formula adds completeness for the calculation logic. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't clarify the return format (e.g., a number vs. a formatted string), and it doesn't mention unit assumptions beyond parameter names. It's adequate but not fully complete for an agent that needs to know the response type.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the variables w, h, a in the formula but doesn't explicitly map them to weightKg, heightCm, age. The sex parameter is covered by the two formula variants. This is adequate but could be clearer by explicitly stating 'weightKg = weight in kg' etc. The formula itself adds semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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 Basal Metabolic Rate using the Mifflin-St Jeor equation, and includes the specific formula. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bmi_calculator and tdee_calculator by naming the exact calculation method and metric.

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 the tool is for calculating BMR, which is appropriate for understanding basal metabolic rate, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use it versus tdee_calculator (which adds activity level) or daily_calorie_calculator. It provides the formula context but lacks direct usage scenarios.

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