evaluate_coolant_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the modeling approach (Novendstern pressure drop, energy balance plus Mikityuk Nu for clad temperature), which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about whether the tool is a pure computation, what units or format the result takes, or any assumptions/limits beyond the named correlations.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences that front-load the core computation and reserve the second for a parameter clarification. No filler, though the density assumes significant domain knowledge.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a six-parameter nuclear-thermal evaluation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves parameter meaning and usage context largely 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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only explains temp_c (coolant inlet temperature). The other five inputs (pitch_m, burnup_gwd_t, flow_rate_kg_s, pin_diameter_m, assembly_power_kw) are left to self-descriptive names with no stated units beyond the suffixes.

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?

States a specific verb ('evaluates') plus concrete computed resources: sodium coolant pressure drop, peak cladding temperature, and FCCI eutectic margin, even naming the correlations used (Novendstern, Mikityuk). This clearly distinguishes it from physics siblings like evaluate_aurora_core_block_conduction_tool, though it does not explicitly call out the contrast.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling evaluation tools. The only usage-adjacent statement is that temp_c is the coolant inlet temperature, which is clarification rather than selection guidance.

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