physics_get_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully inform about behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a 'quick reference guide' but does not specify the format (e.g., string, object), whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The description is vague about the exact behavior beyond the basic action.

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, using a single introductory sentence followed by bullet points for available physics types, and clearly labeled 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input thoroughly but lacks detail on the output structure or format of the guide. It is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 defines physics_type as a string with 0% coverage, but the description compensates by listing all four valid values and their meanings (e.g., 'electrostatics: Electric field and capacitance'). This adds crucial semantic information beyond the 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 explicitly states 'Get a quick guide for a specific physics type' and lists four distinct physics types with brief explanations. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like physics_add_* or physics_list, which serve different functions.

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 implies usage by listing available types and stating what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as physics_get_available or physics_list. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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