femm_geometry_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 non-obvious side effect (the tool SAVES the model to disk, to its current path or <work_dir>/model.<ext>) and explains why (FEMM 5 has no pre-processor count getters). That the 'summary' operation writes to disk is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know. It does not mention error/permission behavior, keeping it at 4.

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 front-loaded sentences: outputs first, then the mechanism/caveat, then the intended use. The enumeration of counted entities is dense but justified as the tool's output contract. No padding.

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 is responsible for return content and behavior, and it covers both: what gets counted and the save side effect. It leaves the exact return format/structure unspecified, which is the only notable gap.

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?

The single 'session' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The value (which session to summarize, defaulting to 'main') is reasonably guessable from the name and sibling conventions, but the description does nothing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (counts) and a concrete resource set (nodes, segments, arcs, block labels, materials, boundaries, circuits/conductors, bounding box), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like femm_problem_info or femm_file_summary without opening any schema.

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?

'Use it to sanity-check a model before meshing' gives a clear usage context and implicitly positions it relative to the meshing/solve siblings. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or stating when not to use it, so it falls just short of 5.

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