calculate_hpt

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the formula and parameters but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or edge cases (e.g., handling of out-of-range inputs).

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 concise with the formula upfront and parameter explanations. The 'Args:' label is slightly redundant but does not detract significantly.

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?

Covers the core calculation and parameter details. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary. Minor gap: does not mention input validation or units consistency.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for all four parameters: thickness (net or gross, units), phi (fraction 0-1), sw (fraction 0-1), ntg (default 1, range 0-1). This compensates well 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 tool calculates hydrocarbon pore thickness with the explicit formula HPT = h * phi * (1-Sw) * NTG, specifying the resource and operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like calculate_net_pay.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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