plasticity_read_dcb_mode_i_energy_test

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating that the record is content-addressed, includes retained source locators, returns derived MBT G_I versus crack-length results, and is not a TSL or cohesive FEA input. It does not cover error behavior, but with annotations this is a strong addition.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary read action and returned content. The second sentence is a targeted exclusion that earns its place given the many cohesive/FEA-related sibling tools, and there is no redundant wording.

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 usefully summarizes what the record contains, and annotations cover safety. It omits how recordId should be discovered and does not route to sibling tools like list_dcb_mode_i_energy_tests, but for a safe read-one tool with a strict schema pattern the core invocation context is mostly present.

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 carries more burden for parameter meaning. The phrase 'content-addressed' hints that recordId is an intrinsic content hash rather than an arbitrary ID, but the description does not explain how to obtain the value or confirm its 64-character hex format. The schema pattern supplies format, leaving partial semantic coverage.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('one content-addressed physical DCB Mode-I energy record'), and the scope of returned data ('retained source locators and derived MBT G_I versus crack-length results'). It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from cohesive FEA inputs, so an agent can identify what this tool is and is not without opening the 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 description provides a negative usage boundary ('not a traction-separation law or cohesive FEA input'), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_dcb_mode_i_energy_tests or where to obtain the required recordId, leaving procedural usage implied rather than explicit.

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