Calculates FairHelm hydrodynamic coefficients—hull speed, CSF, comfort ratio, D/L, and SA/D—from yacht dimensions locally, avoiding external API costs.
Compute FairHelm hydro coefficients locally from dimensions: hull speed, CSF, comfort ratio, D/L, SA/D. No CapEx.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loa_m | No | ||
| lwl_m | No | ||
| beam_m | No | ||
| sail_area_m2 | No | ||
| displacement_kg | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds that computation is local and has 'No CapEx', which is useful execution context, but it does not state whether inputs are all required (schema shows 0 required), what happens if inputs are omitted, output format, or any assumptions behind the formulas.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase contributes something to the purpose or execution context. It is concise, though 'No CapEx' at the end is slightly cryptic for a general agent.
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 no annotations, no output schema, five optional parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and outputs but leaves critical calling details—requiredness, input meaning, and output structure—unaddressed.
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 for the five undocumented input parameters. It does not describe what loa_m, lwl_m, beam_m, sail_area_m2, or displacement_kg mean, nor which are needed for which outputs. The list of computed ratios adds some domain context but does not clarify the 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 specific verb ('Compute') and names the resource ('FairHelm hydro coefficients') and enumerates the computed outputs (hull speed, CSF, comfort ratio, D/L, SA/D). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools such as get_yacht_specs or yacht_specs_health.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrases 'locally' and 'No CapEx' hint at cost-sensitive local computation, but they do not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.