Physics MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation method and output structure, but does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid inputs), assumptions (e.g., static equilibrium), or performance considerations. It adds basic behavioral context but lacks depth for a tool with computational complexity.

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 well-structured with purpose, method, args, returns, and an example, all in a compact format. Every sentence adds value, though the example could be slightly more concise. It is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a complete overview: purpose, method, parameters, return values, and an example. It covers the essential context for a calculation tool, though it could include more on limitations or edge cases for full 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter's meaning, units, and format alternatives (e.g., 'or JSON string'), adding significant value beyond the bare schema. However, it does not detail constraints like non-negative lengths or valid position ranges.

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 specific action ('calculate reaction forces'), the resource ('for a simply supported beam'), and the method ('uses moment equilibrium about supports'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_force_balance' or 'check_equilibrium' that might verify rather than compute.

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 for simply supported beams with point loads but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_force_balance' for verification or other calculation tools for different beam types. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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