AxTidy3D_report_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool sends data externally. It only lists the fields to include, which is parameter information, not behavioral context. For a tool that reports feedback, it lacks transparency about what happens with the data or any potential consequences.

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 fairly concise but duplicates parameter information already present in the schema. It front-loads the purpose and includes a list of parameters, which adds length without new value. It could be shortened by referencing the schema, but it is not overly verbose. The structure is acceptable but not efficient.

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?

For a simple reporting tool with 5 documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and required fields. However, it does not address the sibling ambiguity (which report_feedback to use) or any edge cases (e.g., what if the previous tool failed). Given the many similar tools, additional context about selection would improve completeness.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description repeats the parameter names and brief purposes, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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's purpose: 'Summarize the tool call you just executed.' It identifies the resource (the previous tool call) and the action (summarize/report). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the many sibling report_feedback tools, the tool name includes 'Tidy3D', so it's contextually clear. This is a clear statement of function, though not maximally specific about domain.

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 explicitly says 'Always call this after using any other tool,' which provides clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or clarify which of the multiple report_feedback siblings should be called (e.g., AxModelFitter_report_feedback, AxPDE_report_feedback). The guidance is present but incomplete given the sibling ambiguity.

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