belt_drive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the computation model and the exact return keys, but says nothing about what determines the 'pass' flag, what limits or thresholds are applied, or how inputs like tight_side_limit_n affect behavior.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the core purpose leads, followed by equations and the return list with no filler. It is a bit dense (formula block crammed into one line), but every element earns its place.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and the physics model. However, it omits the meaning of the 'pass' result, threshold criteria, units for several inputs, and full parameter definitions, leaving meaningful gaps.

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. The equations do add engineering meaning for several parameters (power_w=P, diameters=D/d, center_distance=C, friction_coef=mu, vbelt_groove_deg=beta), but the mapping is implicit and tight_side_limit_n and small_pulley_rpm are left unexplained, so coverage is partial.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Rate a belt drive') and even names the governing method (Eytelwein/capstan), so the agent knows exactly what computation this performs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the related sibling 'chain_drive', but the belt-specific framing is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., which inputs are mandatory vs optional, valid ranges), and no mention of alternatives like chain_drive or gear_rating. The description only explains the math, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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