plasticity_import_enf_mode_ii_energy_csv

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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already covering safety, the description adds substantial beyond-annotation behavior: what it fits (displacement vs force), what it converts, that it preserves per-source SHA-256/record locators, and critically what it does NOT do or claim (no ASTM D7905 conformity, no R-curve, cohesive law or design allowable; attestations do not verify machine-compliance, fixture identity, or failure location).

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 preview purpose, then the manual selection workflow, then the scope disclaimers. Dense but mostly earning its place for a 20-parameter tool; some clauses (e.g. the attestation caveat) are slightly repetitive of the earlier disclaimer.

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 20-required-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema tool, the description explains the workflow, the mapping burden, and the interpretation limits thoroughly. The remaining gap is per-parameter meaning at 0% schema coverage, which keeps it from a 5.

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% across 20 parameters, so the description carries the burden, and it does meaningfully cover the categories (explicit column/unit/sign/delimiter/decimal mapping, material process, interface normal and in-plane shear direction). However, individual parameters such as testProtocolHash, complianceEvidence, and linearElasticQuasiStaticEvidence are never explained, leaving definite gaps. Baseline 3 for a high-complexity schema whose fields are partly contextualized.

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-only preview of raw ENF Mode-II force/displacement data in one explicitly mapped local CSV') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings that record tests ('It does not register a physical test'), separating it from plasticity_record_enf_mode_ii_energy_test and match/list variants.

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?

Gives procedural when/how context: manually group at least three compliance-calibration runs per specimen, select exact record numbers in the linear region, and select the fracture peak; it warns 'the tool never chooses a peak or finds a linear region for you' and instructs to review before any physical-evidence recording. It does not name an alternative sibling tool by name, keeping it below a 5.

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