thermal_composite_wall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does so: it discloses the exact per-unit-area relation, that it is analytic and solver-free (so no job submission/queueing), and enumerates every returned quantity. It omits stated limits (steady-state 1D series only, constant k, no radiation/contact resistance), which is the main gap.

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-loaded with the core identity, then a compact layer/coefficient spec followed by the formulas and the return dict. Dense notation is used efficiently, though the parenthetical commentary ('the classic overall-U calculation', 'closed-form oracle') is slightly decorative for a machine reader.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description plugs both gaps by inlining the formulas (R, U, q, interface temps) and listing every returned field, plus the nested layer-item shape. An agent has enough to construct a correct call; only the area_m2 and temperature-unit details are left to inference.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most of the 6 params: layers is described as an in→out list with each item {thickness_mm, k | material}, k units declared and DB material names allowed, and h_in/h_out given units and optionality. area_m2 and the temperature-unit convention are left implicit, keeping it short of a 5.

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 precise verb+resource: it computes the 'Exact series thermal-resistance network of a plane composite wall'. The '(NO solver)' qualifier and 'closed-form oracle' framing separate it cleanly from the many solver/submit siblings (cht_channel_submit, thermal_transient_1d, fem_thermal_results) an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 makes clear this is the instantaneous closed-form path versus the family's solvers, and spells out the exact calculation it performs. However, it never explicitly states when-not to use it (e.g. transient, radiation, 2D effects) or names a specific alternative tool, so selection guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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