plasticity_read_enf_mode_ii_energy_test

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the record is immutable, the initiation-energy result is server-recomputed, and the payload bundles calibration runs, fracture inputs and fit diagnostics.

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, no padding, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the disambiguating 'not a ...' clause last where it belongs.

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 enumerates what the read returns and flags immutability, which is the right burden to carry. The only notable gap is how an agent should source the recordId, which is left entirely to the schema.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description says nothing about recordId, its 64-hex format, or how to obtain one. The agent must fall back entirely on the schema's regex pattern, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (one immutable physical ENF Mode-II energy record), and goes further to enumerate exactly what the record contains (calibration runs, fracture inputs, provenance, fit diagnostics, recomputed initiation energy). The closing contrast with a traction-separation law / cohesive FEA input sharply distinguishes it from nearby analysis siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Read one ... record'. The negative clause rules out a different artifact type, not a competing sibling, so nothing routes the agent between this and plasticity_list_enf_mode_ii_energy_tests, plasticity_record_enf_mode_ii_energy_test, or plasticity_calculate_enf_mode_ii_energy.

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