femm_examples_list

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the shape of results: name, path, size, and a header containing problem type, units, frequency, depth for models. It's implicitly a safe read operation. It doesn't state ordering or result-count behavior, but the behavioral profile is otherwise clear.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is listed and what comes back, the second covers filtering and the next action. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 two-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, return fields, and the follow-up call. Minor omissions (ordering, whether an empty query returns everything) are not enough to prevent correct invocation.

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, and it does: `query` is defined as a substring filter and `extension` is illustrated with concrete values ('.fem', '.py', '.lua', ...), which is exactly what the bare schema lacks. It stops short of stating case-sensitivity or whether filters combine as AND, but the semantics are usable.

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 names the specific resource (example models and scripts shipped with FEMM 5, in examples/ and pyfemm/examples/) and enumerates the returned fields (name, path, size, header details for models). An agent can immediately tell this is a read-only enumeration of bundled sample content, distinct from document/file tools like femm_file_summary or femm_open.

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 gives concrete filtering guidance ('Filter by substring query and/or extension') and routes the agent onward with 'Open one with femm_open.' There are no explicit exclusions or when-not conditions, but the intended workflow (list, then open) is unambiguous.

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