friction_loss

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 lists the outputs (head loss per metre, total head loss, pressure drop, flow velocity, Reynolds number, Darcy friction factor) and explains the applicability of each method (Hazen-Williams water-only, Darcy-Weisbach universal). It does not explicitly address edge cases or error handling, but for a calculation tool the behavioral traits are well covered.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core function, then explains methods and outputs, followed by presets and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure appropriately front-loads the most critical information.

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 (8 parameters, 5 required, two methods, presets) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, the two methods and their distinctions, all return values, the availability of presets, and explicit usage context relative to siblings. An agent has all the information needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions roughness presets and custom values, but the schema already documents each preset and its effect. No additional parameter semantics are provided that would elevate the score.

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: to calculate friction loss (head loss and pressure drop) in a full-bore water pipe. It specifies two distinct calculation methods (Hazen-Williams and Darcy-Weisbach) and explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by mentioning validation of pipe sizing from recommend_diameter and comparison across materials/diameters.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to validate pipe sizing from recommend_diameter or to compare friction losses across materials/diameters.' It names a specific sibling tool and gives clear use cases, fulfilling the 'explicit when/alternatives' criterion effectively.

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