resolve_v_belt_profile

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the outcome (resolve profile and angle) but does not disclose side effects (if any), whether it is read-only, required inputs, or output format. The mention of 'diameter-dependent angle' hints at behavior but lacks detail.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler words and is highly concise. However, given the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, standard systems), it may be too brief, but the conciseness itself is appropriate.

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?

With multiple parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of 'standard_system', the optional 'datum_diameter', or what the resolved output looks like. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly with only this description.

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 by explaining parameters. It mentions none of the three parameters (designation, datum_diameter, standard_system) and does not explain the enum values or how they affect the resolution. This is a critical gap for a tool with multiple inputs.

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 uses a clear verb 'Resolve' with resource 'V-belt groove profile' and mentions 'diameter-dependent angle', which adds specificity. It distinguishes from the sibling 'resolve_poly_v_profile' by explicitly stating 'V-belt', and from 'list_v_belt_profiles' by using 'resolve' vs 'list'. However, it does not clarify what 'resolve' returns (dimensions, angles, etc.) or differentiate from 'preview_v_belt_groove' beyond the verb.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_v_belt_profiles', 'preview_v_belt_groove', or 'resolve_poly_v_profile'. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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