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 for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool computes (distance and closest point) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify output format (though an output schema exists), error conditions (e.g., mismatched array lengths), computational characteristics (e.g., whether it's resource-intensive), or safety implications (e.g., this is a read-only analysis tool with no side effects). The description is functional but incomplete for behavioral understanding.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place by either explaining the computation or clarifying parameters. It's appropriately sized for a 9-parameter technical tool. Minor improvement could be made by front-loading the default unit information rather than burying it in the parameter list.

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 complexity (9 parameters, technical domain) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It adequately explains the computation and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The combination of good parameter semantics with missing behavioral transparency results in a mixed picture - sufficient for basic use but incomplete for robust agent understanding.

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 provides clear semantic explanations for all 9 parameters: identifying which belong to reference vs offset wells, explaining measured depths, inclinations, azimuths, surface location offsets, and the unit parameter with its default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles like 'Well1 Md' or 'Well2 Start North'. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that arrays should be same length for each well.

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 ('Check separation', 'Computes center-to-center distance', 'identifies the closest approach point') and resource ('between two well trajectories'), making the tool's purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on well anticollision analysis rather than economic calculations, pressure drops, or other petroleum engineering functions listed among siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing well trajectory data), exclusions (e.g., not suitable for single wells), or suggest sibling tools for related tasks like 'calculate_well_survey' or 'calculate_dogleg_severity'. Usage context is implied only through the tool's name and parameter descriptions.

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