chain_drive

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it enumerates the return keys (rated_power_w, governing, pass, ...), states the governing-envelope logic, unit conventions (P in inches, powers in W), and the k_r override conditions. It does not discuss error/pass-fail semantics beyond the 'pass' key, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and rating basis, then packs parameter guidance and return shape into dense parentheticals. Every clause is informative, though the inline formulas and symbol notation make it heavier than ideal for quick scanning.

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 a computation tool with 7 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it defines the rating method, unit system, return keys, mutually exclusive pitch/chain-number paths, and the k_r escape hatch. It only leaves the exact meanings of the required geometric/speed inputs implicit.

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, and it explains several parameters: chain_pitch_mm (matching add_sprocket), chain_number examples ('40','60'), strands scaling, k_r override values, and power units. It under-explains the two required params (teeth_small, speed_rpm), which are only inferable from the N1/n1 symbols in the formulas.

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 and resource with the governing standard: 'Rate an ANSI roller-chain drive (ASME B29.1)'. Names the two internal rating envelopes (link-plate fatigue, roller impact) and the output, so an agent can distinguish it from belt_drive and gear_rating without opening the schema.

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?

Gives parameter-selection guidance ('Give chain_pitch_mm ... OR a chain_number') and ties chain_pitch_mm to add_sprocket, which is useful context. However, it never states when to pick this tool over the adjacent belt_drive/gear_rating rating tools, nor any speed/validity exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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