physics_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation with no destructive effects, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond this. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a simple listing tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 very concise with no unnecessary words. It follows a clear structure: a brief statement of purpose, then an Args section and Returns summary. Every sentence is informative.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the parameter. It explains the return value as 'List of physics interface names'. It does not elaborate on what constitutes a physics interface, which may be assumed domain knowledge.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying that model_name defaults to 'current model', which is not in the schema. This provides useful context beyond the bare parameter definition.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'physics interfaces', and the scope 'in a model', distinguishing it from sibling tools like physics_list_features (which lists features of an interface) and physics_get_available (which lists available interfaces).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as physics_get_available or physics_list_features. The description lacks context for when this tool is appropriate.

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