calculate_cylinder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only restates inputs and return values (volume and areas) without mentioning safety, permissions, rate limits, or output format. Minimal behavioral insight beyond what's obvious.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and formula, then adding usage hints. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 many sibling tools (calculate_volume, calculate_area, calculate_cone), the description lacks differentiation. It mentions related calculators but does not explain why to choose this over them. Output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, but the description could be more complete in guiding selection.

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% with 'Radius' and 'Height' descriptions. The description adds no new meaning beyond repeating these inputs, so it does not compensate beyond the baseline.

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 computes cylinder volume and surface area with formulas, and gives example use cases (tanks, pipes, containers). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like calculate_volume or calculate_cone, which compute volume/area of other shapes.

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 usage context ('Use for tanks, pipes, or containers') and hints at a related bundle ('See list_bundles for related math calculators'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations.

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