calculate_energy_physics

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

The description discloses the return format (energy in joules, kJ, kWh) and the formulas used, giving clear behavioral context. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers expected behavior without contradictions.

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 very concise with three front-loaded sentences. It efficiently conveys purpose, return values, and related tools without unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and related tools. It is largely complete, though explicit mention of output schema could improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are already described. The description adds value by associating formulas with parameter usage (e.g., velocity for kinetic, height for potential), enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 four energy types it can calculate (kinetic, potential, mass-energy, work) with formulas. It distinguishes itself from other calculators but mentions related bundles. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'calculate_kinetic_energy' which might cause confusion.

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 implies usage for physics energy calculations and directs to list_bundles for related science calculators, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over individual energy calculators or alternatives.

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