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 describes the calculation method but lacks information about error handling, numerical precision, assumptions (e.g., applicability ranges beyond 0-1), or output format. For a computational tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 the equation first, followed by parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose and method, the second provides the formula, and the parameter definitions are essential for understanding inputs. No wasted words.

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 computational nature, 2 parameters, and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It includes the equation and parameter semantics. However, it lacks context about when to use this specific permeability method versus alternatives, which would improve completeness for agent decision-making.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides clear definitions for both parameters: 'phi: Porosity (fraction v/v, 0-1)' and 'swirr: Irreducible water saturation (fraction v/v, 0-1)', including units and valid ranges. This adds substantial meaning 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 method ('using Timur (1968) equation'), including the exact mathematical formula. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_permeability_coates' by specifying the Timur equation, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 like 'calculate_permeability_coates' or other permeability-related tools. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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