calculate_well_survey

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

No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It describes inputs and outputs but does not disclose side effects, performance implications, or input validation behavior. It implies a read-only calculation, which is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 succinct with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a well-organized parameter list. It is slightly verbose in repeating 'List of' but overall efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers inputs and return values (North, East, TVD, DLS). It could mention output units or synchronization of arrays, but it's complete enough for a calculation tool.

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 detailed explanations for all four parameters, including units (ft/m, degrees), valid ranges (0-180 for inclination, 0-360 for azimuth), and default value for 'unit'. This adds significant value beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage.

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 calculates well trajectory using the minimum curvature method, which is a specific verb+resource. Among siblings like calculate_dogleg_severity, it distinguishes itself by computing full trajectory (North, East, TVD, DLS).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_dogleg_severity or calculate_vertical_section. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts.

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