femm_experiment_bh_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that it runs a solve (mutating solution state), that it flags demagnetisation risk via the min B_m < min_fraction * Br condition, and that magdir-formula labels are skipped. It omits session scoping and error behavior, but the key behavioral traits are surfaced.

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?

Three information-dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and outputs. No filler words; the skip rule is placed last where it belongs. Slightly jargon-heavy (Pc, B_m/Br) but each clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates what is returned per magnet block (mean/min B_m, H_m, Pc, B_m/Br) and the demagnetisation flag. It is nearly complete, lacking only session semantics and any note on failure when no magnet labels or solution exist.

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 explains min_fraction precisely through the flagging inequality (min B_m < min_fraction * Br), which is meaningful. The 'session' parameter is left entirely undocumented, so half the parameters remain unexplained.

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?

States specific verbs and resource: it solves, then per magnet block label reports B_m, H_m, permeance coefficient Pc, and B_m/Br, plus demagnetisation flagging. This is highly specific and clearly distinguishable from sibling analysis tools like femm_block_integral or other experiments.

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?

Implied usage is clear from 'Permanent-magnet operating points', and the note that it solves first signals the precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., versus femm_block_integral or another experiment), leaving the agent to infer the selection.

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