ComptonProfile_Partial

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the calculation and gives parameter constraints. It does not mention whether the operation is safe (read-only), what the output represents, or any edge cases (e.g., invalid shells).

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 a clear one-line purpose followed by a terse argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description is adequate. It defines all required parameters and their roles. However, it could briefly note how this differs from the full ComptonProfile tool or mention the return value type.

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 compensates well: it explains pz as 'Projection of the electron momentum in atomic units', provides example shell values (e.g., 'K_SHELL', 'L1_SHELL'), and gives the expected range for Z (1-120). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 resource ('partial Compton profile'), and the scope ('for a shell of an element'). It distinguishes from the sibling ComptonProfile tool by specifying 'partial' and 'shell'. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ComptonProfile, ComptonEnergy, or other related tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage.

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