rta_npi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds value beyond the schema by explaining the computation and application. It covers the operation (integration of pressure-normalized rate) and context, but could further disclose assumptions or return format. Still, it provides solid 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, two for applications, and a clean parameter list. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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, the description covers the core operation, use cases, and parameter meanings. With an output schema present (not shown), the return value is likely explained there. The description is complete for an agent to understand and select this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section with brief explanations and units (e.g., 'Bottomhole flowing pressures (psi)'). This adds meaning beyond the parameter titles. It could clarify array size constraints or typical value ranges, but overall it significantly enhances understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Compute Normalized Pressure Integral (NPI) for flowing material balance' and explains its use for smoothing noisy data, flow regime identification, and FMB analysis. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling RTA tools like rta_blasingame or rta_agarwal_gardner.

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 indicates usage for flow regime identification and FMB analysis, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose NPI over other RTA methods (e.g., Blasingame, Agarwal-Gardner). No 'when not to use' or alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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