petropt/petro-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the calculation purpose. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, numerical precision, assumptions in the porosity formula, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description is functional but lacks operational context needed for safe use.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more polished. It's appropriately sized for a calculation tool with three parameters.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, calculation function) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and parameter semantics well, though additional behavioral context would improve completeness for a calculation tool with no annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: rhob (bulk density), rho_matrix (matrix density with sandstone default), and rho_fluid (fluid density with fresh water default). It provides units (g/cc) and typical values, adding essential meaning beyond the bare 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 specific action ('calculate porosity') and resource ('from bulk density log'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_effective_porosity and calculate_sonic_porosity which use different methods. It precisely identifies the calculation method and 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 context through parameter defaults (sandstone matrix, fresh water fluid), suggesting typical applications. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like calculate_effective_porosity or calculate_sonic_porosity, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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