dp_segment_liquid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It names the calculation method but does not state assumptions (e.g., incompressible flow), limitations, or even confirm it is a read-only operation. This sparse disclosure is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without wasted words. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse to be fully useful, it 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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how fittings are handled, what schedule_name refers to, or any return value behavior. The output schema exists but the description still needs to provide more contextual glue.

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% for top-level parameters, and the description adds no explanation of parameters like schedule_name, roughness_mm, or fittings. The agent must rely on parameter titles alone, which are ambiguous for several inputs.

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 calculates pressure drop using Darcy-Weisbach + Crane K for one liquid pipe segment. This specific method and scope distinguish it from sibling tools like pump_tdh and valve_cv_liquid.

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 implies use for liquid pipe segments, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The scope phrase gives some contextual clue but no direct comparison.

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