calculate_vertical_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It explains the projection calculation but omits details on error handling, input validation, or performance. The tool is a calculation (likely non-destructive), but this is not explicitly stated.

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 brief purpose statement followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers input semantics thoroughly. Output details are not needed (schema exists). It could mention typical output structure (e.g., returns projected coordinates) but is otherwise complete.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter in the 'Args' section (e.g., 'vs_azimuth: Vertical section azimuth in degrees (0 = North)'). This adds meaning beyond types and defaults, though it could specify allowed unit values more precisely.

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: 'Project well trajectory onto a vertical section plane.' It explains the calculation of horizontal displacement and identifies it as the standard method for 2D cross-section views. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'calculate_well_survey' (3D survey) and 'calculate_dogleg_severity'.

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 when to use the tool (standard way for 2D cross-section) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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