petropt/petro-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the tool's behavior: it performs a calculation based on input parameters and returns one of two possible results depending on whether fracture_half_length_ft is provided. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, precision, units consistency requirements, or what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists).

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement, followed by implementation details, then a well-organized parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information. The parameter documentation is front-loaded with the most important behavioral information first.

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 technical complexity of this engineering calculation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining the tool's purpose, parameters, and conditional behavior. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling or edge case information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation. Each of the 6 parameters is clearly explained with units and purpose. The description adds crucial semantic information beyond the bare schema, including the conditional behavior of fracture_half_length_ft and the meaning of 'None' value.

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's purpose: 'Extract permeability from RTA linear flow analysis.' It specifies the exact calculation method (using slope from sqrt(t) analysis) and distinguishes between two possible outputs (permeability or sqrt(k)*xf product). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'calculate_permeability_coates' or 'calculate_permeability_timur' which use different methods.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for RTA linear flow analysis specifically. It explains the conditional logic: if fracture_half_length_ft is provided, it returns permeability; if None, it returns sqrt(k)*xf. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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