petropt/petro-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the equation and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error handling, output format, or domain-specific constraints (e.g., valid input ranges beyond 0-1 for phi).

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 front-loaded with the purpose and formula, followed by parameter details. It's efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (scientific calculation), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is fairly complete. It explains the calculation and parameters well, though more behavioral context would help.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by defining all parameters (phi, bvi, ffi, c) with clear meanings, units (fraction v/v), and a default for c. 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 specific action ('Estimate permeability') and the method ('using Coates (1991) equation'), including the exact formula. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_permeability_timur' by specifying the Coates method.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'calculate_permeability_timur' or other permeability methods). The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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