femm_experiment_parametric

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that every case re-opens the same saved base model (so cases are independent, no state carryover), runs its commands, solves, and collects outputs, and it restricts case commands to preprocessor prefixes mi_/ei_/hi_/ci_. No disclosure of failure modes, runtime cost, or concurrency.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then gives dense, example-driven detail for cases/template/outputs. Every clause carries information given the empty schema, though the output-kind enumeration is run together and could be formatted more readably.

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 nested-parameter sweep tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers cases, template, and output kinds well but leaves the 'session' parameter and the identity/loading of the 'saved base model' 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% and the nested cases/outputs are untyped objects, so the description must compensate — and it does, documenting case keys (name/params/commands), the template placeholders like {dx}, and the six output kinds with their fields. The 'session' parameter is never explained, keeping this below a 5.

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 verb+resource ('Generic parametric study') and describes the per-case flow: re-open base model, apply setup, solve, collect outputs. The word 'Generic' implicitly separates it from the specialized siblings (femm_experiment_cogging, _backemf, _inductance), but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied by 'Generic parametric study' versus the named specialized experiment tools, and 'preprocessor commands only: mi_/ei_/hi_/ci_' scopes what a case may contain. However there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over femm_experiment_force_vs_position or the other experiment_* tools.

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