ComptonEnergy

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 does not mention any assumptions (e.g., free electron at rest), limitations (energy range), or side effects. The minimal description fails to inform the agent about important behavioral context beyond the basic calculation.

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 concise, with a single sentence for purpose followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly improved by including the output description, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity (two numeric inputs, standard physics calculation), the description provides the essential information for the calculation. However, it lacks the output unit or format, and does not mention physical assumptions. An output schema exists but its content is unknown; the description could complement it with a brief note on the return value.

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, so the description must add meaning. It successfully clarifies that E0 is incident photon energy in keV and theta is scattering angle in radians, which are essential details not present in the schema. The description compensates well for the lack of schema property descriptions.

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 specific calculation: 'Calculate the photon energy after Compton scattering.' The verb 'calculate' and the resource 'photon energy after Compton scattering' are precise, and the tool is distinct from siblings like CS_Compt (cross section) and ComptonProfile.

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 implies usage by describing what the tool does, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools (e.g., CS_Compt for cross sections, ComptonProfile for profiles). Given the large number of sibling tools, explicit when-to-use advice would be beneficial.

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