calculate_sonic_porosity

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is purely computational, what happens with invalid inputs, or whether it returns a single value or dictionary. The output schema is not described.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear bullet-style listing of parameters. No extraneous 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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. However, the description lacks any note on assumptions (e.g., clean formation, porosity range validity) or unit consistency, which would improve completeness.

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 coverage, the description adds significant value by providing units (us/ft), defaults with examples (e.g., '55.5 (sandstone)'), and method options. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Calculate porosity from sonic (compressional) log' with specific methods (wyllie, raymer). It is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_density_porosity or calculate_effective_porosity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus other porosity calculation tools (e.g., sonic vs density). No prerequisites, input validation, or context for selection are provided.

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