CS_Compt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, performance characteristics, or edge cases like invalid Z or E. Only basic function is described.

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 yet contains the core purpose and parameter details in a clean format. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's function and parameters adequately for a simple cross-section calculator, but completeness is slightly reduced by lack of usage context.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining Z as atomic number (1-120) and E as photon energy in keV, adding meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 states it calculates the Compton scattering cross section of an element in cm2/g, which is clear. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like CS_KN (Klein-Nishina) or other cross-section tools, so differentiation is lacking.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., CS_KN for free electron scattering). The description only defines parameters without any context on appropriate use cases.

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