calculate_carbon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (carbon intensity, benchmark, reduction measures with payback) and the methodology, but lacks details on assumptions, limitations, or handling of missing inputs (e.g., when energy_kwh_year is 0). It is not misleading but incomplete.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes key outputs. No extraneous information or filler.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and returns, but misses usage context, prerequisites, limitations, or methodology nuances. It is adequate but not comprehensive given the tool's complexity.

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 schema covers 60% of parameters, leaving floor_area_m2 and construction_year undocumented. The description does not explain any parameters directly, nor does it compensate for the gaps. It implies operational vs. embodied inputs but does not clarify how each parameter is used.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('operational + embodied carbon and net-zero gap'), and references specific standards (CIBSE TM65 / RICS WLCA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like building_carbon_footprint by emphasizing the net-zero gap and payback measures.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include similar carbon-related calculators (e.g., building_carbon_footprint), but the description does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or excluded.

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