calculate_hydraulic_pressure

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It notes output in multiple units (Pa, kPa, bar, psi) and implies a read-only computation. However, it does not disclose side-effect-free nature, error handling, non-negative constraints, or that the computation is stateless. It is minimally adequate for a simple math tool.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the formula and purpose. However, the unit inconsistency reduces clarity, and the mention of list_bundles is tangential. It earns points for brevity but loses for accuracy.

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 physics tool with schema covering all required parameters and an output schema present, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits critical behavioral details like precision, rounding, or boundary handling. The unit contradiction is a significant gap that undermines completeness despite the small scope.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description introduces a critical inconsistency: it states input area is 'm²', but the schema parameter is 'area_cm2' with description 'Piston area cm²'. This mismatch can mislead an AI agent about the correct unit, degrading reliability. The description adds no value beyond schema for parameters.

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 hydraulic pressure using the formula P=F/A, specifying it's for hydraulic design. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'calculate_pressure_convert' by focusing on computation rather than conversion. The reference to 'science' calculators via list_bundles further clarifies its category.

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 says 'Use for hydraulic design' which implies context but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It fails to mention alternatives like 'calculate_force' or 'calculate_pressure_convert' among the many sibling tools, offering only a vague pointer to list_bundles.

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