flow_regime

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states what the tool returns (Reynolds number, classification, and a turbulence-model recommendation) and implies it is a pure calculation with no side effects. While it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior or error handling, the output-focused description is sufficient for a straightforward computational 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 two sentences, with the primary output front-loaded in the first sentence and the geometry clarification in the second. There is no fluff, and every word adds value. It is concise and well-structured for quick scanning.

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 is simple but has no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description needs to explain all inputs and return values. It covers the output but leaves three of four parameters (velocity, length, kinematic_viscosity) without meaningful description. Units or typical values are absent, and the exact output format is not specified. The description is incomplete for a novice agent, though adequate for an expert.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It only explains the 'geometry' parameter (internal vs. external), leaving 'velocity', 'length', and 'kinematic_viscosity' unexplained. Although the parameter names are self-explanatory to an informed user, the description adds no detail about units, characteristic length, or typical values, which is a significant gap given the absence of schema documentation.

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 output: Reynolds number, laminar/transitional/turbulent classification, and a turbulence-model recommendation. It also distinguishes geometry types (internal/external), which is specific and useful. None of the sibling tools appear to compute a flow-regime classification, so it is well differentiated.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explicit 'use when' or 'do not use' guidance. The only contextual hint is the geometry parameter, which relates to parameter semantics rather than usage guidance. The agent is left to infer when this is the appropriate tool.

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