calculate_beggs_brill

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

The description lists the calculated outputs (flow pattern, holdup, friction factor, pressure gradient) but does not disclose limitations, assumptions, convergence behavior, or accuracy. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and falls short of full transparency.

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 two paragraphs: a succinct summary followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no redundant or empty content.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and calculation details. Output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, missing preconditions or assumptions (e.g., applicable flow regimes) limits 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description's Args section provides semantic details and constraints (e.g., 'water cut as fraction (0-1)', 'inclination from horizontal (-90 to 90 degrees)') that completely compensate 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 it calculates multiphase pressure drop using the Beggs & Brill (1973) correlation, specifying flow pattern, liquid holdup, friction factor, and pressure gradient components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_bubble_point or calculate_gas_z.

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 labels it 'the most widely used multiphase flow correlation' but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer its applicability without clear boundaries.

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