heat_transfer_pipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the correlation and that defaults are for water, but omits important behavioral details: the heating boolean parameter's effect (n exponent changes), validity ranges (e.g., Re > 10000), assumptions like fully developed flow, and what happens for non-water fluids. It is not misleading, but leaves gaps.

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 compact, two sentences, and front-loads the key formula and return type. It avoids fluff, though the omission of parameter explanations suggests a trade-off between brevity and completeness.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain how to set parameters correctly (e.g., units, heating flag), nor does it state the correlation's applicability (turbulent vs laminar thresholds). An agent might misapply it or set the heating boolean incorrectly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Defaults are for water' which hints at density, Prandtl, conductivity, and kinematic viscosity defaults, but does not explain the meaning of each parameter, units, or the role of the 'heating' boolean. It does not add enough beyond the raw schema to guide correct parameter selection.

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 it computes convective heat-transfer coefficient for internal flow, specifies the exact correlation (Dittus-Boelter) and its laminar counterpart, and lists the return values (Nusselt number and h in W/m^2K). It uses specific verbs and resource, and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like pipe_pressure_drop or flow_regime.

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 context (internal flow, water defaults) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or when not to use it. Siblings like pipe_pressure_drop are obviously different, but no routing guidance is given.

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