calculate_ratios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It states 'calculate' and 'classify,' implying a read-only computation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm idempotence or lack of destructive behavior. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 efficient: one line for purpose followed by three parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant information.

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 simple functionality and the presence of an output schema (which is not required to be detailed in the description), the description covers the core computation and parameter units. It could mention that the output includes the calculated ratios and well type, but this is not a major gap.

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 add meaning. It provides units for each parameter (bbl/day, Mcf/day, BWPD), which is helpful beyond the schema's simple type number. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the units add value.

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 it calculates producing ratios (GOR, WOR, water cut) and classifies well type. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_bubble_point or calculate_brine_pvt.

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 implies use when needing producing ratios and well classification from oil, gas, and water rates. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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