rta_permeability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses the calculation algorithm, the two output cases based on fracture_half_length_ft, and the physical units of inputs. This provides transparency into the tool's computation behavior.

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 concise with two paragraphs and a structured Args list. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main calculation and output conditions. While it explicitly states the output (permeability or sqrt(k)*xf), it does not mention underlying assumptions or error handling. However, given the tool's specialized nature and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with an 'Args' section detailing each parameter, including units, explanation, and special behavior for the optional fracture_half_length_ft (returns sqrt(k)*xf if None). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 extracts permeability from RTA linear flow analysis using the sqrt(t) slope, and specifies the two possible outputs. It distinguishes itself from other RTA tools by focusing on permeability calculation.

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 implies when to use (given slope from linear flow analysis) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to sibling RTA tools like rta_sqrt_time or rta_blasingame. No alternatives or context exclusions are mentioned.

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