plasticity_match_fastener_group_test

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds materially: the three possible outcome states (no-match, matched, ambiguous), the hole-ordering invariance guarantee, and an explicit epistemic limitation that a match is test evidence only and not a capacity, allowable, or equivalence proof. That last caveat is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs to avoid over-claiming results.

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 purpose and scoping, with no filler. Dense but every clause (required inputs, outcome states, ordering invariance, evidence caveat) earns its place; the first sentence is long but purposeful.

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 no-output-schema tool taking three required nested objects, the description covers what inputs define a match, what the result states are, and how to interpret a positive result. Missing only guidance on the granularity of tolerances or how ambiguity arises, which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% and the schema has three deeply nested objects with enums, so the description carries the burden. It enumerates every discriminating input category (print process, rectangular dimensions, hole centers/diameters, fixture configuration, load axis, fastener diameter/clearance, clamp condition), which compensates well without restating field names or units.

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 (match physical multi-hole joint tests) and enumerates the exact key space the match is scoped to. An agent can distinguish it from plasticity_record_fastener_group_test, plasticity_list_fastener_group_tests, and the sibling match_* tools without opening any schema.

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?

The 'only for an exact print process, ...' phrase establishes the precondition that selection requires full exact-match data, and the closing sentence defines the boundary of what a match means. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. list_fastener_group_tests) for partial or fuzzy lookups, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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