evolved_gas_sg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'computes' and 'returns' values, implying a read-only calculation, and mentions that 'evolved gas composition changes with pressure' which adds useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage contexts, behavioral note, and return details. It is appropriately sized, though the bulleted list of applications could be slightly more 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 complexity of a physics-based calculation with 1 parameter (a nested object) and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, key behavioral aspect (pressure variation), and return format, though it could benefit from more detail on input constraints or examples.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining that parameters include 'oil properties, pressure(s), and separator conditions', clarifying the purpose of the nested 'request' object and its role in the calculation.

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 specific action ('Calculate evolved gas specific gravity') and resource ('gas evolved from oil as pressure decreases below bubble point'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'gas_sg_from_composition' or 'weighted_average_gas_sg' by focusing on pressure-dependent evolution from oil.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('for material balance calculations, surface facility design, gas sales forecasting' and 'when pressure decreases below bubble point'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools among the siblings.

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