gmx_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat safety traits. It adds value by listing the specific data returned, which goes beyond the structured annotations. However, it does not mention potential behavior like error conditions or network requirements, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word is useful, and the key action 'Return' is front-loaded. No extraneous information.

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 has no parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (presumably documenting the return structure), the description is complete. It provides a clear summary of what the tool does, which is all that is needed for this simple informational command.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by specifying what the tool returns (version, build config, binary path, project root). This helps the agent understand the output without needing to inspect the output 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 tool returns specific GROMACS information: version, build config, binary path, and project root. The verb 'Return' plus explicit fields leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function, and it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other tasks like editing or running simulations.

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 tells what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it or when to avoid it. While the purpose is self-explanatory (get GROMACS info), there is no mention of alternatives or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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