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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the calculation formula but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like: whether this is a pure calculation (no side effects), what happens with invalid inputs (e.g., values outside 0-1 range), error handling, or performance characteristics. The description provides the core functionality but lacks operational context.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with the purpose statement, provides the exact formula, then clearly documents each parameter with necessary details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information. The formatting with clear sections (purpose, formula, args) enhances readability.

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 mathematical nature (simple calculation with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is nearly complete. It provides the purpose, formula, and full parameter documentation. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (error handling, constraints), but for this type of calculation tool, the description covers most essential aspects.

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 (titles only provide parameter names), the description fully compensates by providing complete parameter semantics. It clearly defines both parameters: 'phi_total: Total porosity (fraction v/v, 0-1)' and 'vshale: Shale volume (fraction v/v, 0-1)', including units, valid ranges, and their role in the calculation. This adds substantial 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate effective porosity from total porosity and shale volume' and provides the specific formula PHIE = PHIT * (1 - Vshale). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_density_porosity or calculate_sonic_porosity by specifying the exact calculation method and inputs.

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. While it implicitly suggests usage when needing effective porosity from total porosity and shale volume, it doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when other porosity calculation tools might be more appropriate. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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