femm_experiment_backemf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real side effect ('Currents are zeroed and restored') plus the spectral-derivative method. However it omits key behavioral facts for a solver experiment: whether an FEMM solve is required per step, expected runtime/cost, and any state preconditions.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph but front-loads the purpose (open-circuit back-EMF) before the mechanics. Every clause carries information (formula, derived outputs, side effect, optional comparison), with little 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?

For a 10-parameter experiment tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is only partially sufficient. It documents the computation and outputs but leaves the required rotate_groups and several parameters unexplained, which an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it clarifies circuits (default all), steps (sample count), pole_pairs (period formula), and psi_estimate (analytic comparison). The required rotate_groups is never explained, and rpm, center, method, session, and gap_boundary are entirely 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 names a specific verb+resource: computing open-circuit back-EMF from flux linkage of each circuit over one electrical period. It is technically precise and clearly distinct in subject from the other experiment siblings (cogging, inductance, ac_sweep), though it does not explicitly name how it differs from them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The only usage hint is that supplying psi_estimate triggers an analytic comparison; nothing tells the agent when this experiment is the right choice versus other experiment tools.

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