CS_Rayl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only specifies parameter ranges (Z: 1-120, E in keV) but fails to mention output format, return values, error conditions, or any side effects. The tool's behavior remains opaque beyond its basic purpose.

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: a single line stating the purpose, followed by a two-line parameter list. Every sentence is necessary, and the key information (what it calculates and the inputs) is front-loaded without any redundant text.

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?

Despite the tool's scientific complexity and lack of annotations, the description omits critical details such as the output format or return value semantics. Although an output schema exists (per context), it is not shown, and the description does not explain what the result represents beyond 'cross section,' making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description's parameter list adds meaningful context: 'Z: Atomic number (1-120)' and 'E: Photon energy in keV.' This provides valid ranges and units, but no further details like allowed values or constraints beyond type.

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's function: 'Calculate the Rayleigh scattering cross section of an element (cm2/g).' It includes the specific verb 'calculate' and the resource 'Rayleigh scattering cross section,' which distinguishes it from related siblings like CS_Photo or CS_Compt that compute different 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as CS_Total or CS_Compt. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context to choose appropriately among many sibling cross-section tools.

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