calculate_beggs_brill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool calculates various flow parameters but does not mention internal algorithms, convergence behavior, or handling of extreme inputs. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description could add more context about assumptions or limitations.

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 well-structured with a concise summary sentence followed by a parameter list. It is slightly verbose but all sentences serve a purpose. The front-loaded summary effectively communicates the tool's function without unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (10 required parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description adequately covers inputs and purpose. It does not describe return values, but the output schema fills that gap. Lacks examples or scenario guidance, but for a well-known correlation, this is sufficient.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, which it does thoroughly. The Args section defines each parameter with units and allowed ranges (e.g., water_cut as fraction 0-1, inclination -90 to 90 degrees), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 identifies the tool as implementing the Beggs & Brill (1973) multiphase pressure drop correlation, specifying it determines flow pattern, liquid holdup, friction factor, and pressure gradient. This highly specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools like calculate_choke_flow or calculate_hydrostatic_pressure.

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 states it is the 'most widely used multiphase flow correlation' but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for multiphase pipe flow but lacks exclusions or comparison to other correlations like Hagedorn-Brown or Duns-Ros.

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