plasticity_import_interface_tensile_csv

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: it reads only a regular non-symlink file up to 16 MiB, leaves the file unchanged, does not register a physical test, requires caller-supplied mappings with no inference, and returns a preview with SHA-256 plus nominal force/area stress. This is rich transparency for a read-only import tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded and dense, with no filler sentences; the exclusions and persistence handoff earn their place. It is nonetheless quite long, and the exclusions sentence could be tightened, so it is not maximally concise despite being appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 import with 8 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing context: return preview format, SHA-256, nominal stress, file constraints, no-inference rule, and persistence handoff. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and understand the next step.

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 semantic burden, and it does: it explains that the caller must map exact CSV headers, delimiter, decimal separator, force unit, and force sign, and must supply each specimen's measured net cross-section and observed failure location, with none inferred. These are meaningful constraints and mappings beyond the bare enum values in the schema.

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 ('Read') and resource (caller-selected local UTF-8 CSV of direct tensile-coupon force samples), plus the concrete outcome: maximum sampled tensile force per explicitly listed specimen, with a preview containing source SHA-256 and nominal force/area stress. It distinguishes its scope from DCB/ENF/MMB energy curve tools and from the separate record_material_interface_test persistence step.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (peak-strength screen from a caller-mapped tensile CSV) and when not to use it (does not filter or compliance-correct machine data, create DCB/ENF/MMB traction-separation curves, estimate fracture energy or cohesive parameters, or establish an allowable). It also names the required follow-up alternative: review the preview and call plasticity_record_material_interface_test to persist evidence.

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