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

The annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context about the output format (compact vs full table) and the meaning of the gpu flag, enhancing transparency beyond the annotations.

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 yet information-dense, covering the tool's purpose, output variations, and parameter usage in two sentences without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently describes what will be returned (version, packages, styles) and the conditions for different outputs, making the tool's behavior clear for an agent.

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 descriptions for 'full' and 'runner' are complemented by detailed explanations in the description (e.g., 'runner=lammps&full=true returns the whole style table'), which clarifies the practical effect of each parameter.

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?

Clearly states it returns a capability manifest (LAMMPS version, packages, styles) and distinguishes itself from preflight_deck. The specific mention of 'capability manifest' and the breakdown of content makes its purpose 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?

Explicitly directs users to use preflight_deck for checking a specific deck, providing a clear alternative. It also explains parameter effects (default vs full output) and the runner parameter, giving concrete usage guidance.

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