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. It discloses the calculation methods (wyllie, raymer), default values for parameters, and that it performs a calculation (not a destructive operation). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, precision, or output format details.

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?

Perfectly structured and concise. First sentence states purpose, second lists methods, then clear parameter documentation with units and defaults. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a calculation tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains all parameters thoroughly and mentions the calculation methods. The output schema will handle return values, so the description appropriately focuses on inputs and methodology. Minor gap: no mention of units for the output porosity value.

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 compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explains what 'dt' represents (interval transit time), 'dt_matrix' (matrix transit time with sandstone default), 'dt_fluid' (fluid transit time), and 'method' (wyllie or raymer). 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 tool's purpose: 'Calculate porosity from sonic (compressional) log' with specific methods named ('wyllie', 'raymer'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_density_porosity' by specifying the input data type (sonic log).

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 usage context by mentioning the methods and default values, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'calculate_density_porosity' or when to use wyllie vs raymer method. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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