pyResToolbox MCP Server

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 explains the physics behind the calculation and mentions the return format (dictionary with incremental GOR and guidance), but doesn't specify computational characteristics like performance expectations, error conditions, or validation requirements for the input parameters.

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 clear sections (purpose, physics, applications, args, returns) and efficiently conveys necessary information. While comprehensive, every sentence serves a purpose - no redundant or wasted text. The formatting with bold headers enhances readability.

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 specialized engineering purpose, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good context. It explains the physics, applications, and what the tool returns. However, for a calculation tool with specific physical constraints, additional guidance on parameter validation or typical use cases would enhance completeness.

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% (the schema has no descriptions for individual parameters), but the description provides a high-level overview: 'Separator pressure, temperature, and oil API' in the Args section. However, it doesn't explain the meaning or significance of these parameters beyond their names, nor does it provide guidance on valid ranges beyond what's in the schema constraints.

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 purpose: 'Calculate incremental GOR from separator to stock tank' with the physics explanation of gas evolution between conditions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'oil_solution_gor' by focusing specifically on the incremental gas between separator and stock tank rather than total solution gas.

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 (separator optimization, gas recovery calculations, tank venting requirements, VOC emissions estimation). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for related calculations.

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