physics_add

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. States action but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or response structure. Minimal disclosure beyond basic operation.

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?

Well-structured with sections for description, common types, Args, and Returns. Front-loaded main purpose. Slightly verbose with extensive type list, but overall 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?

Covers basic parameters and return type but omits error handling, model prerequisites, and detailed return schema. Adequate for simple use but insufficient for complex scenarios, especially given sibling tools requiring differentiation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful explanations for all three parameters: examples for physics_type, defaults for component_name and model_name. Lacks constraints or enumerated values but significantly compensates for schema gap.

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?

Clear verb 'add' with resource 'physics interface'. Distinguishes from specific sibling tools like `physics_add_electrostatics` by listing common physics types as examples, indicating it's a generic alternative.

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?

Provides physics type examples and defaults for optional parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this generic version versus the specific `physics_add_*` alternatives. No exclusion criteria or when-not guidance.

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