petropt/petro-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While the description shows the formula, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like units of measurement for the result, whether the calculation is deterministic, error conditions, or typical use cases in drilling operations. The formula presentation is helpful but insufficient for full behavioral understanding.

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 the formula first, followed by parameter definitions. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the formula could be slightly more clearly formatted. The information is front-loaded with the core calculation purpose.

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 existence of an output schema (which presumably documents the return value), the description provides adequate context for this calculation tool. It covers the purpose, formula, and parameter meanings. For a straightforward calculation tool with output schema, this is reasonably complete, though additional behavioral context would improve it.

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 providing clear parameter definitions: 'mud_weight_ppg: Static mud weight (ppg)', 'annular_pressure_loss_psi: Annular pressure loss (psi)', and 'tvd_ft: True vertical depth (ft)'. Each parameter gets both a descriptive name and unit specification, adding significant value 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 tool's purpose with a specific formula (ECD = MW + APL / (0.052 * TVD)) and identifies the exact calculation being performed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'calculate_hydrostatic_pressure' or 'calculate_formation_pressure_gradient' by focusing specifically on equivalent circulating density.

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. With many sibling calculation tools available (like calculate_hydrostatic_pressure, calculate_formation_pressure_gradient), there's no indication of when ECD calculation is specifically needed versus other pressure-related calculations.

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