calculate_density_porosity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It lacks information on assumptions, edge cases, or potential errors. As a pure calculation tool, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond the formula implied by parameters.

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 concise and well-structured using a docstring format with 'Args' section. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently lists parameters. No superfluous information.

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 output schema exists (not shown) and the parameter descriptions are clear, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple petrophysical calculation tool. It covers the essential inputs and defaults, though edge cases are omitted.

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 description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: rhob as bulk density, rho_matrix with default 2.65 (sandstone), rho_fluid with default 1.0 (fresh water). This provides context missing from the schema.

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 calculates porosity from bulk density, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from similar tools like 'calculate_sonic_porosity' by specifying the input type.

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 implies usage for density-based porosity calculation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_sonic_porosity' or 'calculate_nd_porosity'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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