rta_agarwal_gardner

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses computations but lacks details on input validation, units (e.g., days or months but not enforced), error handling, or side effects. Reads as a pure function, but missing behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a bullet list of parameters. Efficient but could merge list into prose. No fluff, but the list partly repeats schema info.

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?

Output schema exists but details not provided; description omits return format. With 5 required inputs and no annotations, more context on assumptions and output structure would be beneficial. Adequate but not thorough.

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 has 0% coverage, but description adds meaning beyond names: units (days/months, psi) and purpose for each parameter. However, does not explain constraints like equal array lengths or positivity.

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 computes Agarwal-Gardner rate-normalized variables for type curve analysis, listing specific outputs (normalized rate, inverse normalized rate, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling RTA tools by naming the specific method.

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?

Implied usage for type curve analysis, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like Blasingame or NPI. No exclusions or conditions provided.

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