plasticity_list_enf_mode_ii_energy_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by characterizing the records as 'immutable' and 'caller-confirmed' and by noting the list returns 'compact summaries' rather than full diagnostics, which explains what is and isn't in the response.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the alternative, then scope exclusions. Every clause earns its place by disambiguating among the many Mode I/II sibling list/read tools. Slightly dense jargon but no filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description supplies the essential context: what the records are, that summaries (not full data) are returned, and which sibling holds the detailed fields. No gaps that would cause a misinvocation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. The schema correctly declares an empty object with additionalProperties=false and the description does not need to compensate.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb (List) with a precise resource (immutable caller-confirmed physical ENF Mode-II energy records) and states the output shape ('compact summaries'). It also separates itself from the nearly identical plasticity_list_dcb_mode_i_energy_tests and plasticity_list_mmb_mode_i_ii_energy_tests by naming the Mode-II ENF scope explicitly.

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 explicitly routes the agent: use plasticity_read_enf_mode_ii_energy_test for calibration/fracture measurements, source hashes/locators and fit diagnostics. It further narrows scope with negative statements ('not cohesive laws, not applied to FEA'), giving both when-to-use and when-not boundaries.

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