CS_KN

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the output unit (barn/electron) but omits key details like valid energy range, whether it's differential or total cross section, or assumptions (e.g., free electron).

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 with two sentences covering purpose and parameter. Every word adds value, no 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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, the tool is part of a large family of cross-section calculators, and the description lacks context about when this specific model applies (e.g., free electron, relativistic). It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 must compensate. It states 'E: Photon energy in keV', which adds the unit and clarifies the physical meaning beyond the schema's simple title 'E'. However, it does not specify expected range or format.

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 'Calculate the Klein-Nishina cross section (barn/electron)', specifying the exact quantity and units. This uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like CS_Compt, which may represent a different Compton cross-section model.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many alternative cross-section tools (e.g., CS_Compt, CS_Total). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or recommended scenarios.

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