CS_Energy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool performs a calculation (read-only) and specifies input ranges (Z 1-120, E in keV). However, it does not disclose side effects, error handling, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for missing return value details.

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, using two short sentences to express purpose and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every word earns its place 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?

Given the tool's low complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers core functionality and inputs well. It could mention what happens on invalid input (e.g., out-of-range Z or E), but the explicit parameter ranges already provide basic guardrails.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly defines each parameter: Z as atomic number with range 1-120, and E as photon energy in keV. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare types, making the inputs fully understandable.

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 verb 'Calculate' and the specific resource 'mass energy-absorption cross section of an element', with units (cm2/g). Among many sibling cross-section tools (CS_Total, CS_Photo, etc.), this one is uniquely identified by its focus on energy-absorption, making it easy to distinguish.

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 given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like CS_Total or CS_Photo. The description only states what it does without contextualizing its speciality or restrictions, forcing the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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