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 what the tool calculates but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only calculation, what units the output uses, error conditions, or computational characteristics. 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 a clear purpose statement followed by parameter definitions. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the formula could be better integrated with the purpose statement. The Args section is appropriately formatted but slightly disrupts the flow.

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 handles return values), the description provides adequate context for a calculation tool. The formula and parameter definitions create a complete understanding of what the tool does, though behavioral aspects like error handling or performance characteristics remain undocumented.

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 in the Args section. Each parameter (sidp_psi, original_mud_weight_ppg, tvd_ft) is explicitly defined with its meaning and units, adding substantial value beyond the bare schema that only provides titles and types.

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 kill mud weight for well control') and provides the exact formula (Kill MW = MW + SIDP / (0.052 * TVD)). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform different petroleum engineering calculations like 'calculate_annular_velocity' or 'calculate_hydrostatic_pressure'.

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 contextually suggests it's for well control situations, there's no explicit mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when other tools might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the formula alone.

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