calculate_kinetic_energy

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It correctly states the computation and return unit (joules), but does not disclose any behavioral traits like handling of zero mass, negative velocity, precision, or error conditions. For a simple calculation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 plus a helpful reference, all front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: formula, units, context, and pointer to related tools. No wasted words.

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 calculator tool with only two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, formula, and units. It could briefly mention that velocity can be negative (though squared), but overall it is sufficient. The output schema likely handles return details, so no further explanation needed.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions ('Mass in kg', 'Velocity in m/s'). The description repeats this information without adding new semantics (e.g., acceptable ranges or restrictions beyond schema). With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 kinetic energy using the formula KE=½·m·v², and specifies units (kg, m/s, joules). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'calculate_energy_physics' or 'calculate_force', which could lead to confusion. The generic 'physics' context is helpful but not unique.

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 mentions using the tool for 'physics, vehicle safety analysis', providing some context, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or explicit alternatives. The reference to 'list_bundles' for related calculators is indirect and does not specify exclusions.

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