Physics MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining what the tool does (analyzes energy changes), its inputs (trajectory data with mass and optional parameters), and detailed return values. It adds context like identifying bounces and friction effects, though it could mention computational complexity or error handling.

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 clear sections (purpose, args, returns, tips, example) and front-loaded key information. It's appropriately sized, though the example is detailed; every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by integrating tips into the main flow.

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 complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, return values, and provides an example. With no annotations or output schema, it fully compensates by detailing behavioral aspects and output structure, ensuring the agent can use it correctly.

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 fully. It does so by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'trajectory_data: Trajectory data dict with 'frames' field', 'mass: Object mass in kg'), including defaults and units, which adds crucial meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Track', 'Analyzes') and resources ('energy dissipation over a trajectory', 'energy changes over time in a recorded trajectory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on energy analysis of recorded trajectories, unlike general calculation tools like calculate_kinetic_energy or record_trajectory.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after record_trajectory or record_trajectory_with_events' specifies prerequisites, and the example demonstrates the workflow. It also mentions use cases ('understanding damping, bounces, and energy loss mechanisms') and visualization tips, clearly indicating when to use this tool.

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