calculate_sonic_porosity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the calculation and lists parameters; it does not disclose side effects, error handling, or return value nature. For a read-only calculation, more transparency about output format or assumptions would be helpful. Minimal behavioral info leads to a score of 2.

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 extremely concise (4 lines) and well-structured, using a docstring format with methods listed and arguments detailed. Every sentence is necessary and informative. No extraneous text.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no enums) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, methods, and parameters. However, it lacks details on potential errors, input validation, or output range. For a complete understanding, one might want to know if negative transit times are allowed or what happens with invalid methods. Thus, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not thorough 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: dt (interval transit time), dt_matrix (matrix transit time, default 55.5 for sandstone), dt_fluid (fluid transit time, default 189.0), and method (wyllie or raymer, default wyllie). This adds meaning beyond the schema titles and types. Since it covers all parameters adequately, a score of 4 is warranted.

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?

Description clearly states it calculates porosity from sonic logs and lists two methods (Wyllie, Raymer). It specifies the resource (sonic porosity) and verb (calculate), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like calculate_density_porosity or calculate_nd_porosity, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., density porosity, neutron porosity). The description implies usage via the sonic log context but provides no when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings. This lack of guidance results in a score of 2.

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