calculate_effective_porosity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the formula and parameter ranges (0-1). It does not disclose what happens for out-of-range inputs, precision, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 very concise: a single sentence plus the formula and parameter list. Every element is necessary and front-loaded, with no wasted text.

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 simplicity (two required numeric inputs, a clear formula, and an existing output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the formula and parameter constraints, though it omits details like output unit or edge case handling. The output schema likely covers return format.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly defines both parameters: phi_total as 'Total porosity (fraction v/v, 0-1)' and vshale as 'Shale volume (fraction v/v, 0-1)', adding meaning beyond the schema's numeric type and title.

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 calculates effective porosity from total porosity and shale volume using a specific formula (PHIE = PHIT * (1 - Vshale)). This is a clear verb+resource, and among many calculation siblings, it stands out as a distinct petrophysical computation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. other calculation tools (e.g., calculate_nd_porosity, calculate_density_porosity). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical inputs, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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