plasticity_compare_static_fem_refinement_reports

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations: it discloses the merge rule, the two conditional screen outputs and their preconditions, the homogeneous-continuum assumption (no layer interfaces, delamination or mixed-material joints), and explicit limits ('diagnostic only, not convergence estimates, strength verdicts or print approval'). This is unusually rich behavioral 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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with purpose before the merge mechanics and caveats. Most sentences carry distinct load-bearing detail, though the allowable-screen paragraph is long and could be 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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what comes back: sampled stress/displacement trends across combined levels, plus either the raw peak screen or the componentwise maximum-stress screen, and separately reported CAD/material evidence freshness. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result 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, reportIds, and the schema carries no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by stating the 2–4 cardinality and that inputs must be saved reports from one CAD revision, but it never explains the ID format (36-char UUID pattern) that the schema enforces silently.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+cardinality: 'Compare 2–4 saved static FEA reports from the same CAD revision...'. It enumerates the matching dimensions (body, supports, loads, material evidence, native geometry) and distinguishes itself from report-producing siblings like plasticity_static_fem_report by being explicitly a comparison/merge tool.

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 the prerequisites for valid use (same CAD revision, body, supports, loads, material evidence and native geometry) and what merging requires (byte-identical mesh hashes with matching solver results). It does not name an alternative tool or say when not to use this one, so it falls short of explicit routing.

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