Atomic_Factors

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Calculate atomic factors' and lists parameters, but does not disclose whether it's read-only, requires network, or what the output format is (though an output schema exists, the description adds no behavioral context).

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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose and including parameter descriptions in a single paragraph with no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and all inputs, and an output schema exists to explain returns. However, it could benefit from briefly explaining what f0, f', f'' are (e.g., scattering and absorption factors) and typical use cases, but overall it is adequate for a computation tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful parameter semantics: atomic number range (1-120), photon energy unit (keV), momentum transfer unit (1/Angstrom), and debye factor. This adds value beyond the schema's type and title, though could include constraints like allowed ranges for E and q.

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 calculates atomic factors f0, f', and f'' for an element, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on atomic factors, not other properties like Compton profiles or cross sections.

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 when atomic factors are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like CS_Total or FF_Rayl. It provides context through parameters but lacks explicit selection guidance.

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