physics-field_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Report' without explicitly stating it is read-only, what data it returns, or whether it has side effects. The minimal phrasing does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the dictionary definition.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy, front-loaded with the action. It is about as brief as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description does not cover expected return format, scope of force field settings, or any edge cases. It is minimally sufficient but inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 schema defines a single 'object' parameter with title 'Object to inspect', but the description adds no extra meaning. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to explain the parameter type, format, or relationship to the report. The title is helpful but the description offers nothing additional.

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 clearly states the action ('Report') and the target ('an object's force field settings'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like physics-report (broader physics report) and physics-field_set (setter).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use it (e.g., to inspect before setting) or when not to use it, leaving context implicit.

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