petropt/petro-mcp

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 describes what the tool calculates but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only calculation or has side effects, doesn't mention error handling or validation for input ranges (e.g., water_cut 0-1, inclination_deg -90 to 90), and doesn't describe the output format or units despite having an output schema.

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 and appropriately sized. It begins with a high-level overview, details the calculations performed, and then lists all parameters with clear definitions. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter section is lengthy but necessary given the complex tool. It could be slightly more front-loaded with usage context.

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's complexity (10 required parameters, engineering calculations) and no annotations, the description is partially complete. It excellently documents parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., computational requirements, accuracy limitations). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more guidance on tool behavior would improve completeness.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides clear semantics for all 10 parameters: defines each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Total liquid flow rate in bbl/day'), units (e.g., 'psi', 'degrees F'), and valid ranges where applicable (e.g., 'Water cut as fraction (0-1)'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'Determines flow pattern, calculates liquid holdup, friction factor, and pressure gradient including elevation, friction, and acceleration terms.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for 'multiphase pressure drop in pipes' using the 'Beggs & Brill (1973)' correlation, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it's 'the most widely used multiphase flow correlation' but doesn't specify scenarios where it's preferred over other methods or tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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