Get numerics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the specific settings returned, but says nothing about return shape or formatting, so it does not go far beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the concrete fields in parentheses. The trailing rule-reference string is somewhat cryptic but adds a pointer rather than padding.

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 partly compensates by listing the returned settings, which tells the agent what to expect. It stops short of describing the full return structure, but for a zero-parameter read tool it is largely 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.

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 ("current numerical stability settings") and enumerates the concrete fields (time step, CFL/VN limits, flux limiter). It is clearly the read counterpart to the sibling set_numerics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with get_simulation_settings or list_raw_namelists.

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 no when-to-use guidance or exclusions; it only states what is read. The rule reference (GEN-016, SIM-002) points to a knowledge base but does not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over set_numerics or get_simulation_settings.

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