list_fitting_kfactors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns a table…') and implies a read-only operation by the nature of 'List'. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a list operation these are not expected. The description gives sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and output. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first defines the resource and return content, the second covers filtering and usage context. No filler or repetition, making it compact and efficient.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, the filter options, and the use case. It lacks explicit mention of default behavior (all when category omitted) but that is already in the schema. Given the simplicity, this is adequate with only minor omissions.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (category) with a clear description and enum values. The tool description simply repeats the enum list without adding new meaning. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 applies; no additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'K-factors for common pipe fittings', and further specifies the output contents (fitting names, K-factors, categories, equivalent-length ratios). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming calculate_minor_loss as the dependent tool, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to find the correct K-factor before calling calculate_minor_loss, or to compare loss characteristics of different fitting types.' This provides clear usage context and even names the sibling tool, covering the when and why without ambiguity.

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