calculate_depth_of_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation purpose and return format, which is sufficient for a pure computation tool. However, it does not mention assumptions like the circle of confusion calculation or default sensor width, which would enhance transparency.

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 and immediately states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and includes a pointer to related tools. There is no 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?

For a calculation tool with an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description adequately explains what the tool computes and the return structure. It could mention the default sensor width or the circle of confusion assumption, but overall it provides sufficient context for tool selection and use.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema are complete (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It only references return values, not parameter details.

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 'Calculate depth of field, near/far focus limits and hyperfocal distance for a camera lens' with specific return values. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'depth of field' are precise, and the description distinguishes it from siblings by listing specific outputs.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions related 'photographie' calculators via list_bundles, but does not state exclusions or context for use. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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