femm_experiment_cogging

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect that all circuit currents are zeroed and then restored, and lists self-checks (zero mean, periodic end points, WST vs virtual work). It omits return format, session requirements, and runtime/cost expectations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the core operation stated first and details following. Every clause carries technical content, though the heavy parenthetical and backtick notation makes it terse for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simulation experiment with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives useful domain context but leaves key gaps: required rotate_groups/slots semantics, session handling, and what the tool returns are all unexplained.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it defines periods, steps (samples incl. end point), and poles (2p). Required parameters slots and rotate_groups, plus method, center, session, gap_boundary, and torque_groups, remain 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?

States a specific physical quantity computed (cogging torque with all circuit currents forced to 0) over a defined sweep, which is a clear verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from femm_experiment_torque_vs_angle by noting the shared rotor options, implying a different measurement mode, though it never says so outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for cogging torque specifically while torque_vs_angle is for driven torque, but the description only references the sibling to borrow parameter semantics, not to route the agent. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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