petropt/petro-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'quick-look' calculation, implying it's an approximate or simplified method, but doesn't detail accuracy, assumptions, or output format. For a calculation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and reliability.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section listing parameters. There's no wasted text, and the structure aids readability. However, it could be slightly more polished (e.g., using 'Parameters:' instead of 'Args:'), but this is minor.

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 complexity (a calculation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but overall completeness is limited.

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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema: it specifies that 'nphi' is 'Neutron porosity (fraction v/v)' and 'dphi' is 'Density porosity (fraction v/v)', clarifying the units and types of inputs. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail valid ranges or constraints, preventing a perfect score.

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's purpose: 'Quick-look porosity from neutron-density combination (RMS method).' It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('porosity') with the method ('RMS method'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'calculate_density_porosity' or 'calculate_sonic_porosity', which prevents a score of 5.

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. It mentions the 'RMS method' but doesn't explain its context or compare it to other porosity calculation methods available in the sibling tools list. There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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