femm_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key side effect (writes report.md/report.json/figures to a timestamped dir) and the return shape ('Returns the paths'), which is useful. However it omits prerequisites, whether it requires a loaded solution, and error/failure behavior for a write operation.

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-loaded with the concrete output destination, then enumerates the include options compactly. It is dense with no filler, though the parenthetical run-ons make it slightly harder to parse than a clean list would be.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the outputs and return value reasonably well and is self-sufficient on the main path. Gaps remain around the un-described parameters and the preconditions for writing a valid report.

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 supply all parameter meaning. It documents include values, the zoom format [xmin, xmax, ymin, ymax] in problem units, and experiment_files, but leaves notes, title, and session completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 description states a specific verb and concrete artifacts: write report.md + report.json (+ figures/) to <work_dir>/reports/<timestamp>/. This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from plotting/export siblings. It stops short of a 5 only because it never names a sibling alternative it competes with.

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 only implied: the include options (model/health/field/experiments) suggest this is a consolidation step after solving or running experiments. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., femm_make_plot, femm_compare_results) and no when-not guidance.

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