physics-report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'report', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose edge cases, failure conditions, return format, or whether any side effects occur. The absence of such detail makes behavior unclear.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is perfectly front-loaded and concise, satisfying the requirement for efficient communication.

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 report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too terse. It omits what 'physics stacks' entail, what the report includes, and how to interpret results. Given the suite's many report tools, this lacks essential context for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone parameter 'object'. It adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter name, failing to specify expected format, required object type, or examples, which is a significant 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'report' and resource 'physics stacks' on an object, distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools like physics-add, physics-remove, and physics-set. It also differs from physics-field_report, which targets fields specifically, making the purpose precise.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like physics-field_report or constraints-report. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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