calculate_energy_physics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It discloses the calculation types and return format (energy in multiple units), but does not mention idempotency, side effects, or any authorization requirements. For a calculator tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences: first explains purpose with formulas, second states return format and directs to related tools. No wasted words, easy to scan.

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 has 6 parameters, 1 required, and multiple calculation types, the description lacks crucial context: it does not indicate which parameters correspond to which type (e.g., kinetic requires mass and velocity). The output schema is said to exist but not shown; the description partially fills this gap by naming return fields. Still, significant usage guidance is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds formulas that imply parameter usage (e.g., mass_kg, velocity_ms for kinetic), but does not explicitly map parameters to calculation types or clarify which are required per type, leaving the agent to infer.

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 kinetic, potential, mass-energy, and work, using specific formulas. It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering multiple energy types, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'calculate_kinetic_energy', leaving slight ambiguity.

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 any of the four energy calculations, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'calculate_kinetic_energy' or any conditions such as required parameters per type. The reference to 'list_bundles' is weak.

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