tank_capacity

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the computed outputs. It does not mention whether the tool is a pure calculation, assumptions about constant consumption, or how working_fraction affects results. There is no mention of error handling or limitations.

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 an under-specified fragment rather than a clear, structured sentence. While it is short, it does not earn its place because it introduces ambiguity. A well-structured description would state the calculation and key inputs at minimum.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between autonomy, consumption, and tank volume, nor the meaning of working versus nominal volume. An agent would struggle to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 description fails to explain any of the three parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. It hints at 'working/nominal' volume, which relates to working_fraction, but does not explicitly map inputs to roles. The consumption parameter is entirely absent from the description, so an agent cannot correctly construct arguments.

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 tool as computing storage-tank working/nominal volume and residence time, which indicates its function. However, it lacks an explicit verb and omits the consumption input, making the purpose somewhat vague. It does distinguish itself from siblings as a tank-sizing calculation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as comparing to pipe sizing or pump calculations. It does not state inputs, prerequisites, or typical use cases. This is a significant omission for tool selection.

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