femm_circuit_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses returned quantities, units, derivation formulas, and the important caveat that inductance is valid for a circuit alone in the model with mutual effects included. It stops short of stating read-only status or session requirements, but is rich for a results-query tool.

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 dense but organized by physics mode and front-loads the magnetics case. Technical parentheticals and function names add density, but every clause conveys useful result semantics rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values, which it does well across multiple physics modes. It still omits the session parameter and any call prerequisites, but is largely complete for a complex result-retrieval tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `name` refers to the circuit or conductor name, but it completely omits the `session` parameter and its default behavior, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific resource (circuit/conductor results) with exact quantities returned, including current, voltage, flux linkage, and derived inductance/resistance/impedance. It distinguishes itself from generic field tools by scoping to circuit and conductor properties across magnetics, electrostatics, heat, and current modes.

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?

It explains which physics modes produce which result types, which implies when the tool applies. However, it does not name alternative result tools such as femm_point_values, femm_block_integral, or femm_line_integral, nor does it say when to prefer this tool over them.

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