fluid_props_steam

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the behavioral distinction between single-phase and saturation input modes and notes it is a custom implementation. However, it does not disclose valid ranges, error behavior, or what specific properties are returned (the output schema covers returns). This is useful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and usage instructions in the second. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite lacking annotations, the description covers the essential usage distinction and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. The main gap is the absence of valid pressure/temperature ranges for IAPWS-IF97, but the description is otherwise sufficient for a fluid properties tool with simple inputs.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It directly explains the relationship between temperature_c and pressure_bar_a: both for single-phase, only one for saturation. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic names and types. Unit hints are already in the parameter names (C, bar_a), so the description need not repeat them.

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 identifies the resource as 'Water/steam properties' and specifies the implementation standard (IAPWS-IF97), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool fluid_props_liquid. The verb 'Give' implies retrieval/calculation, though it is not as explicit as 'calculates' or 'returns'.

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 instructions on when to supply both parameters versus only one: 'Give both pressure and temperature for a single-phase state; only one of them for saturation properties at that pressure or temperature.' This gives clear context for using the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'use fluid_props_liquid for liquid properties', so it falls short of a 5.

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