femm_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it enumerates every available check, the physical identity each one validates (W = W', 1/2 Re(V conj I) = losses, torque reaction balance), and the conditions under which checks apply. It stops short of stating side-effect/read-only behavior or cost, but the 'judge a loaded solution' framing makes the read nature clear.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then a dense parenthesized enumeration of checks and a trailing return-shape clause. Every clause carries real information, though the middle block is unabridged and could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names each check, its tolerance logic, the group-based parameters it depends on, and the exact return structure. Missing only the `session` parameter's role and the valid `checks` values.

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 and largely does: it defines `checks` as a subset selector, `b_limit` in tesla, `flux_lines` as two cuts [[p1,p2],[p3,p4]], and the rotor/stator/force/reaction group semantics for torque and force checks. Only `session` and the exact accepted check-name strings are left 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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Judge whether the loaded magnetics solution is physically sane.' That is clearly distinct from siblings like femm_selftest, femm_check_rule, femm_status, and femm_field_stats, which measure different things. An agent can route to this tool on purpose alone.

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?

It states the prerequisite explicitly ('Needs femm_solve first') and explains that the run can be narrowed via `checks`. It does not, however, contrast this tool against the other validation-oriented siblings such as femm_check_rule or femm_selftest, so the agent gets context but no explicit exclusions.

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