plasticity_cohesive_fem_report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: it performs a staleness/consistency check against current evidence, returns a 'raw solver response with mesh-screening diagnostics', and explicitly disclaims that it 'never establishes strength or print approval'. That last point is a meaningful guardrail for downstream reasoning.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the caveat about what the output is not. The enumeration of verified record types is dense but each item carries substantive meaning. No filler, though the sentence is long.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, and it does: a matching-status determination plus raw solver output with mesh-screening diagnostics and an explicit non-certification caveat. Annotations cover the read-only safety profile. It is complete enough to call correctly; only ID provenance is thin.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'by ID', which maps to reportId but adds nothing about format, sourcing, or how a valid ID is obtained. The schema supplies the UUID format/pattern, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Read a persisted cohesive-interface solver report by ID'. It also describes the salient output behavior (reporting whether saved records still match current evidence), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly name how it differs from the similarly-named sibling plasticity_static_fem_report, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for retrieving an already-persisted cohesive report when it has an ID. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus plasticity_static_fem_report, plasticity_analyze_cohesive_interface, or the comparison report tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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