femm_selftest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a lot of work: it runs in a separate session named 'selftest', is fast (~1-2 s), exercises material loading, error paths, unit handling and timing, and returns pass/fail per check. This tells the agent it is isolated and safe, though it omits whether the session it creates is cleaned up or what side effects remain.

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 in the first clause, then evidence follows. It is dense but every sentence adds specificity (dimensions, turns, formula, checked subsystems). The inline formula is verbose, but it is informative rather than filler.

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 complex diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what it checks and that it returns pass/fail per check, so return semantics are covered. Gaps remain around parameter behavior and session lifecycle, but the core call-correctness information is present.

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 explain both parameters and does not. keep_session is entirely unmentioned, and tolerance_pct is only obliquely referenced via 'expect < 1 % error' — which is confusing given the parameter default is 3. The description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: an end-to-end install check that builds an axisymmetric solenoid, solves it, and compares against an analytic formula. It is very concrete about scope and even quantifies the expected error. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like femm_health_check or femm_status, so an agent cannot tell which of these self-check tools to reach for.

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 rather than stated: it is a diagnostic you would run to validate the install, and the '~1-2 s' note hints at cost. There is no explicit when-to-use versus femm_health_check, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when not to run it. Adequate but minimal context.

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