plasticity_calculate_interface_specimen_strengths

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, not open-world, non-destructive); the description adds substantial behavioral context: per-specimen failure location and hashed locator are preserved, only interface failures feed the summary, other failures stay visible but excluded, and no interface failures yields nulls. It also preempts misinterpretation by stating these are not tractions, allowables, qualified bounds, or a cohesive law.

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?

Front-loaded with the computational definition, then the inclusion/exclusion rule, then the scope caveats. Dense but each clause carries information; the final negation sentence is long yet earns its place as a guardrail.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description discloses the returned quantities (range, mean, sample standard deviation, per-specimen visibility, null summaries), so an agent understands both inputs and outputs. Complete enough for a read-only calculation tool.

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% with a single nested specimens array. The description clarifies that peakForceN and netCrossSectionMm2 drive the ratio and that failureLocation/sourceHash/sourceLocator are carried through, giving real meaning, but it does not document each field's contraints or the enum semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (calculate) and resource (nominal peak stress per directly loaded physical specimen) and even gives the governing formula N/mm² = MPa. It is highly specific about the interface-specimen scope, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with.

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 defines the domain conditions under which the tool applies (specimens failing at the printed interface) and what is excluded, but offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing among the many strength/interface siblings. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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