calculate_dilution

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

There are no annotations describing side effects, safety, or read-only/destructive nature. The verb 'calculate' implies a pure computation with no side effects, but this is not explicitly stated, so the agent cannot be certain that no data modifications occur. The description does not disclose any behavioral aspects beyond the calculation itself.

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, consisting of a single sentence, which adheres to the principle of brevity. However, it lacks any structural organization (e.g., bullet points or sections) and is so terse that it omits critical details, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more structured description.

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 is severely incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain the formula's application, the meaning of each parameter, what output to expect, or any edge cases (e.g., division by zero). With no output schema and ambiguous parameters, an agent would be unable to determine the correct inputs or interpret the result, rendering the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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 provides no descriptions for parameters, and the names 'stock', 'desired', and 'final_volume' are ambiguous in the context of the formula. It is unclear whether 'stock' refers to concentration or volume, and which parameter is the unknown being calculated. The lack of any explanation makes it impossible to correctly interpret the parameters without additional knowledge.

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 action ('Calculate') and the subject ('dilution') with the formula C1V1 = C2V2, making the primary purpose evident. However, it does not specify what result is produced (e.g., the missing volume), so the output is not fully clear, preventing a perfect score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_experiments or add_research_document. The description gives no context about typical scenarios (e.g., preparing a solution) or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer its applicability.

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