work_calc

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like needing two non-zero inputs to compute the third, but it only says 'leave 0 if unknown' without clarifying the inference logic. No discussion of error handling or edge cases.

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 short but includes the formula and a parameter list. However, it lacks structure; critical information about the calculation constraint is missing, and the parameter descriptions are inline in the text rather than using a formatted table.

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 three parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify how the tool determines which value to calculate when multiple are non-zero, nor does it describe the output schema. Users may be confused about expected usage.

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 description explains each parameter (force in N, distance in m, work in J) and instructs to leave 0 if unknown, adding meaning beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it omits the crucial detail that exactly two must be non-zero for the calculation to work.

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 it calculates work, force, or distance using the formula W = Fd. It specifies the three possible outputs and the resource being computed, though it doesn't differentiate it from the related sibling tool 'force_calc'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the requirement to provide exactly two of the three parameters, nor does it indicate what happens with invalid inputs or multiple non-zero inputs.

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