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 but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only calculation, what format the output takes (though output schema exists), error conditions, performance characteristics, or any side effects. For a computational tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a brief explanation of the method, then organized parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language. The parameter explanations are terse but complete.

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 computational nature, 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description provides strong parameter semantics and clear purpose. However, with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context about the calculation's characteristics, limitations, or error handling. The output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for some behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description provides clear semantic explanations for all 5 parameters beyond the 0% schema coverage, defining what each represents (e.g., 'measured depths', 'inclinations (degrees)', 'vertical section azimuth in degrees (0 = North)'). It explains the relationship between parameters and the calculation, though it doesn't specify array length requirements or unit conversion details.

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 specific action ('project well trajectory onto a vertical section plane') and resource ('well path'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on 2D cross-section visualization rather than economic, pressure, or porosity calculations. It explains this is the 'standard way to view a well path in 2D cross-section', which differentiates it from other trajectory or survey tools.

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 ('standard way to view a well path in 2D cross-section') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'calculate_well_survey' or 'check_well_anticollision'. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over other visualization or calculation methods.

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