Agree on Library docstring formatting

[nanophyto]

Formatting of the docstrings included in Library is currently all over the place. We should agree to a single format and be consistent.

Proposed formatting (to be discussed):

Short form notation (ideally) consistent with original publication:

"
    R / (kᵣ + R)      

Text description with reference to original publication:

Monod formulation of nutrient limitation, which is based on Michaelis-Menten enzyme kinetics 
and saturates at high nutrient concentrations. It was originally described in Monod, 1949.

Description of arguments providing both long and short form:

# Arguments
- `nutrient_concentration`: The nutrient concentration  (R)
- `nutrient_half_saturation`: The nutrient concentration at which the process occurs at 
half its potential rate (kᵣ)

Any notes relevant to the module:

Note that sometimes this formulation is also used for Predation ('Holling type 2').
"

Function with name of author (if appropriate) and descriptive long form arguments:

function monod_limitation(nutrient_concentration, nutrient_half_saturation)
    return nutrient_concentration / (nutrient_half_saturation + nutrient_concentration)
end

Full example:

"
    R / (kᵣ + R)      

Monod formulation of nutrient limitation, which is based on Michaelis-Menten enzyme kinetics 
and saturates at high nutrient concentrations. It was originally described in Monod, 1949.

# Arguments
- `nutrient_concentration`: The nutrient concentration  (R)
- `nutrient_half_saturation`: The nutrient concentration at which the process occurs at 
half its potential rate (kᵣ)

Note that sometimes this formulation is also used for Predation ('Holling type 2').
"

function monod_limitation(nutrient_concentration, nutrient_half_saturation)
    return nutrient_concentration / (nutrient_half_saturation + nutrient_concentration)
end

[nanophyto]

I guess it would be easiest to add this to the docs or contributor guidelines and open a PR?