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 explains the calculation logic but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this is a pure calculation (no side effects), what units the result is in, whether there are validation constraints on nozzle sizes, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description is purely functional without operational 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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the purpose, provides the exact formula, then explains the parameter with an example. Every sentence earns its place - no redundant information, no unnecessary words. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 has an output schema (which presumably describes the TFA result), the description doesn't need to explain return values. For a calculation tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential calculation logic and parameter semantics well. However, it lacks context about when this calculation is used in drilling workflows, which would help agents understand its application.

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 complete parameter semantics. It clearly explains that 'nozzle_sizes' is a list of nozzle sizes in 32nds of an inch, provides the exact formula showing how the parameter is used, and gives a concrete example ([12, 12, 12]). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Calculate total flow area (TFA) of bit nozzles.' It specifies the exact calculation (TFA = sum(pi/4 * (d/32)^2)) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_annular_velocity or calculate_bit_pressure_drop by focusing on nozzle flow area rather than other drilling parameters.

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 it explains what the tool does, it doesn't mention when this calculation is needed in drilling operations, what problems it solves, or how it relates to other calculations in the sibling list. There's no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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