physics_get_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes a simple non-destructive retrieval operation with no side effects, which is sufficient for a guide tool. It does not elaborate on permissions or data sources, but the behavior is straightforward.

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 very concise with a clear structure: purpose statement, enumerated list of physics types, args/returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what the parameter values mean, and the return type. It is complete for agents to use correctly.

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 input schema only names the parameter (physics_type) without description. The description adds extensive meaning by listing valid values and their meanings, compensating for the 0% schema 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 clearly states the tool gets a quick guide for a specific physics type. It lists available types with definitions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like physics_add (which adds physics interfaces) or physics_get_available.

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 implies when to use (when a reference guide is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. The context of sibling tools and the provided list of types gives some guidance.

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