Refractive_Index_Re

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'calculate', implying a read-only computation, but does not explicitly state idempotence, side effects, or any constraints (e.g., quantum efficiency limits, required input ranges). With zero behavioral context, the description fails to inform the agent about potential pitfalls.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is presented clearly in a bullet-like format (using Args:). It wastes no words, though integrating the purpose and parameters into a single coherent sentence could be slightly more structured. Nonetheless, it is appropriately concise.

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, the description is not required to detail return values. However, the description lacks context about what the tool returns (e.g., complex number, unit) and does not mention any prerequisites or typical use cases. For a tool with three parameters and many siblings, the description is minimal but sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful parameter details: compound (chemical formula with examples), E (photon energy in keV), density (g/cm3). This clarifies units and format beyond the schema's type-only definitions. Slight deduction for not specifying valid ranges or default values.

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 it calculates the real part of refractive index for a compound. This verb+resource purpose is specific and implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'Refractive_Index_Im' (imaginary part). However, it does not explicitly mention what the output is or differentiate further from other related tools like 'Atomic_Factors'.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid compound formula) or contraindications. The description merely states what it does without context for selecting it among the many sibling tools.

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