pipe_size_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the selection criterion (smallest, velocity limit) but omits important behavioral details such as error handling when no pipe size satisfies the constraints, the role of the optional min_velocity_m_s parameter, or any interaction with schedule_name. This is a significant gap for a selection tool.

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, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no annotation support. While it is front-loaded and free of fluff, the lack of necessary detail makes it barely adequate, not appropriately sized.

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 having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters including an optional min_velocity_m_s and schedule_name. It does not clarify how the velocity limit is applied, whether schedule affects selection, or what happens if no size meets the criteria. The description covers only a fraction of the tool's behavioral surface.

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% and the description does not explain any parameter. The phrase 'velocity limit' is ambiguous—it could refer to max_velocity_m_s only or both min and max limits. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names, which are not self-explanatory for units or usage.

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 function: selecting the smallest ASME B36.10M pipe based on a velocity limit. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of ASME B36.10M distinguishes it from sibling tools like pipe_wall_thickness or fluid property calculators.

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 usage for pipe sizing under a velocity constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the context to be inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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