femm_point_values

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 richly: units per key (T, A/m, MS/m, J/m^3, W/m^3, relative), complex AC values returned as {'re','im'} (peak), an explicit outside=true edge case for points off-model, and performance guidance (~1 ms per point, a few hundred per call). This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before calling.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the dense remainder consists entirely of load-bearing detail (units, keys, complex format, edge case, throughput) with no filler. It is a single wall of text without structural grouping, which slightly hurts scannability but not density.

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 ably documents return semantics, units, complex representation, and failure signaling, which is the core of this tool. The only shortfall is the unexplained 'session' parameter and the absence of any when-to-use routing.

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 clarifies the 'points' parameter as [[x,y],...] in problem units and pins coordinate conventions (x/y planar, r/z axisymmetric), which adds real meaning beyond the bare schema. The second parameter 'session' is never mentioned, leaving a 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 precise verb+resource ('field values at [[x, y], ...]') plus scope (problem units, labelled for the physics, plus magnitude). This clearly separates it from sibling point/integral tools like femm_block_integral, femm_line_integral, and femm_field_stats, which aggregate rather than sample.

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 the content (sampling field quantities at discrete points), but the description never says when to prefer this over femm_eval, femm_field_stats, or the integral tools, nor any prerequisites. Reasonable but no explicit alternatives or when-not guidance.

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