calculate_spring_constant

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the tool as a computation that returns the spring constant, implying no side effects. No 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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and immediately following with usage context and a reference to related tools. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 with two well-documented parameters and an output that is implicitly understood from the equation, the description provides sufficient guidance. It also points to list_bundles for related tools, enhancing discoverability.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description merely reiterates the parameter names and units ('force N, displacement m'), adding no new constraints or explanations beyond what the schema provides.

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 computes spring constant k from Hooke's law, specifying the verb 'compute' and the resource 'spring constant'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the specific physical law and the field of use.

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 advises using the tool for physics or mechanical design and references list_bundles for related calculators. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, the context is clear enough for the intended audience.

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