oil_sg_from_jacoby

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it 'Estimates specific gravity' (clarifying it's an estimation), explains the Jacoby aromaticity factor scale, and states the return format ('Returns specific gravity (dimensionless, water=1)' and 'Dictionary with specific gravity, method, and inputs'). It lacks details on error handling or computational limits, but covers core behavioral aspects well.

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 bold headings and bullet points, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized, with every sentence adding value (e.g., explaining the tool's purpose, factor scale, applications, and returns). A minor point: the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections slightly repeat information from earlier, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (involving specialized petroleum engineering calculations), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details like the estimation nature and return format. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them further.

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%, so the description must compensate fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'mw' is 'Molecular weight (lb/lbmol)' and 'ja' is the 'Jacoby aromaticity factor' with a detailed scale (0.0 to 1.0), including interpretations like '0.0 = Pure paraffinic' and '1.0 = Pure aromatic.' This provides essential context not in the schema.

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's purpose: 'Calculate oil specific gravity from molecular weight and Jacoby aromaticity.' It specifies the verb ('Calculate'), resource ('oil specific gravity'), and method ('from molecular weight and Jacoby aromaticity'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'oil_sg_from_api' or 'gas_sg_from_composition' that use different inputs.

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 through the 'Applications' section, listing specific scenarios like 'Plus fraction (C7+) characterization' and 'EOS fluid modeling.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'oil_sg_from_api'), though the context implies it's for undefined petroleum fractions.

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