calculate_caffeine_half_life

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions return fields but does not disclose whether it is read-only, idempotent, or requires any state. As a calculation, behavior is somewhat implied, but explicit transparency is lacking.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second provides return format and a pointer to related tools. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple calculation tool, the description includes return fields and notes related tools. The input schema covers parameters. However, it does not mention the half-life assumption (e.g., 5 hours) which could be important for accuracy, but overall the context is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, baseline applied. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not improve parameter 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 clearly states it calculates remaining caffeine after time, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a caffeine half-life calculator, but could be more precise by mentioning the half-life concept.

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 sibling calculators such as calculate_caffeine_clearance or calculate_caffeine_intake. The mention of 'list_bundles' hints at context but does not provide usage criteria or exclusions.

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