plasticity_calculate_dcb_mode_i_energy

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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: tests are not persisted, rows exceeding 0.4 displacement/crack-length ratio are rejected because large-displacement correction is unimplemented, and eligibility for interlayer fracture evidence depends on caller-confirmed interface failure. This is rich, decision-relevant disclosure.

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?

Purpose and constraints are front-loaded, but the body is a single dense run-on paragraph packing attestations, exclusions, and rejection rules together. Given the complexity the length is mostly justified, but the lack of any structural separation makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 high-complexity, 8-required-parameter tool with no output schema, nested objects, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers input expectations, eligibility rules, and the nature of the returned curve well. It could still say more about how specimens/points failures surface, but nothing critical to a correct call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains the exact single-material print process, global interface normal, test method, protocol SHA-256/date, per-specimen width/length/arm thickness, ≥3 strictly increasing crack lengths, positive force, and machine-compliance-corrected displacement, plus the per-point source locator. It omits semantics for secondary fields like failureLocation enum and infill settings, preventing a 5.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate an exploratory Mode-I G_I-versus-crack-length curve from caller-selected DCB crack-growth observations using Modified Beam Theory (MBT).' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling MMB (mixed-mode) and ENF (Mode-II) energy calculators and from the record/match/list DCB tools.

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?

It gives strong when-not guidance: 'This is not a standards-conformance determination,' does not produce a traction-separation curve/cohesive law/design allowable, and only marks specimens with caller-confirmed interface failure as eligible. It also states the row rejection rule (displacement/crack ratio above 0.4). It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling to use instead, which would be needed for a 5.

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