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. While it clearly describes a calculation (not a destructive operation), it doesn't mention computational characteristics like precision, error handling for invalid inputs, or performance considerations. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral 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 efficiently structured with the formula upfront followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what's being calculated, the second provides the mathematical definition, and the parameter explanations are essential for understanding inputs. Minor improvement could be grouping related parameters or adding a brief output description.

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 that an output schema exists (mentioned in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description provides the complete calculation formula and detailed parameter semantics, making it sufficiently complete for a calculation tool. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context that annotations would normally provide.

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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter is clearly explained: 'thickness: Net or gross thickness (ft)', 'phi: Average porosity (fraction v/v, 0-1)', 'sw: Average water saturation (fraction v/v, 0-1)', 'ntg: Net-to-gross ratio (0-1). Default 1.0.' This includes units, valid ranges, and default values, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 calculation being performed: 'Calculate hydrocarbon pore thickness (HPT = h * phi * (1-Sw) * NTG).' It provides both the purpose (calculating HPT) and the exact mathematical formula, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like 'calculate_net_pay' or 'calculate_effective_porosity' which involve different reservoir calculations.

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 the formula itself suggests this is for hydrocarbon volume calculations, there's no mention of when HPT is preferred over other volumetric calculations like 'volumetric_ogip' or 'calculate_net_pay' from the sibling list. No context about geological scenarios or prerequisites is provided.

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