plasticity_analyze_material_interface_test_curve

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description still adds substantial behavioral context: which records are eligible, what distinguishes pure-mode from mixed-mode reporting, and that legacy/ambiguous records are readable but skipped. With no output schema, the description also carries the return-value burden by enumerating the reported quantities.

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?

Four sentences, all front-loaded with the eligibility condition first, then the reporting behavior, then the exclusions and scope caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the pure/mixed-mode enumeration is dense and could be slightly tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming exactly what is reported for each record kind, plus the eligibility gate and the negative scope caveat. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to call this tool or interpret its summary is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (recordId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains the identifier itself, its 64-hex format, or where it comes from. It does add semantic meaning about what record qualifies (complete, method-classified, load-mode-consistent), which is real value, but the parameter's own syntax and provenance remain undocumented.

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?

Specific verb (summarize) plus precise resource (a stored, complete measured traction-separation curve), with an explicit precondition on the record's physical method classification. An agent can distinguish this from sibling analysis tools like plasticity_analyze_cohesive_interface or the energy-calculation tools without opening any schema.

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?

States both when to use (physical method explicitly classified as DCB Mode I, ENF Mode II or MMB, consistent with load mode) and when not (legacy curves without an explicit fracture method remain readable but are not analyzed). It also implicitly routes away from cohesive-law calibration by declaring the output is 'not qualified cohesive-law parameters'.

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