CS_Energy_CP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lacks details on return format, error handling for invalid compounds, energy range restrictions, or whether the calculation is for a single energy or multiple. The description only specifies the calculation but not its operational boundaries.

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 highly concise: two lines of text plus parameter explanations. It avoids fluff and gets to the point. However, it could benefit from a brief note on output or usage context without significantly increasing length.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, among many sibling tools, this description provides minimal context about how it differs from others (e.g., CS_Energy for elements). It covers the essential inputs but lacks safety or constraint information, making it adequate but not complete.

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 coverage, the description must add meaning. It provides example formulas ('SiO2', 'H2O') for compound, explaining it's a chemical formula, and states E is photon energy in keV. This adds basic semantics but lacks accepted formats, allowed characters for compound, or energy range constraints.

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 action ('Calculate'), the property ('mass energy-absorption cross section'), the substance ('compound'), and includes units ('cm2/g'). Among many cross-section sibling tools (CS_Total, CS_Photo, CS_Energy), this specific tool for compound mass energy-absorption is distinctly identified.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative cross-section tools (e.g., CS_Total_CP, CS_Energy for elements), nor does it mention prerequisites or preferred use cases. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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