femm_file_summary

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 a real side effect (arrays=True writes <stem>_mesh.npz next to the file), which an agent must know before invoking. It omits whether the operation is read-only or what happens on unparseable files, but the key behavioral trait is 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and file scope, then the return contents, then the conditional side effect. No clause is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns itself, and it does so exhaustively (problem definition, materials with flags, boundaries, circuits, groups, counts, bounding box, magnets). Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'arrays' flag and its npz side effect, and the extension list clarifies what 'path' may point to. Path format details (relative vs absolute) are left unstated.

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 (parse) and resource (FEMM text files) and immediately distinguishes itself from engine-dependent siblings by noting it is 'offline (no engine)'. The enumerated accepted extensions make the scope unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'offline (no engine)' signals the correct context of use versus session-based siblings like femm_open or femm_load_solution. It does not, however, name any alternative explicitly or state when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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