physics_add_electrostatics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, limitations, or return value format. The return is vaguely 'Created physics info' without details, leaving the agent uncertain about behavior.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, plus Args and Returns sections. Front-loaded with the main action, no redundant words. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks details on return format, constraints, and integration context with sibling tools. Given no annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter notes add some value (e.g., defaults for domain and model). However, the descriptions are terse and lack format specifics (e.g., what a 'selection name' looks like). The additive value is marginal, just enough to partially compensate for the 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?

The description clearly states it adds the Electrostatics physics interface for electric field analysis. The verb 'Add' and specific resource are clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like physics_add_heat_transfer or physics_add_solid_mechanics, missing explicit guidance on when to use this specific physics type.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, any prerequisites (e.g., model must exist), or context for invocation. This is a significant gap given the number of similar sibling tools.

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