intra_rms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that RMSD is calculated, but does not mention whether the tool modifies the object, requires specific state setup, or produces an output in a particular format. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description covers the essential function. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool versus siblings and does not clarify behavioral traits like non-destructiveness or state requirements. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 schema already covers the single parameter 'selection' with description 'Object whose states to compare.' Tool description adds little beyond the schema phrase 'within an object'. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Calculates RMSD between states within an object'. It specifies a concrete verb ('Calculates') and resource ('RMSD between states within an object'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'rms_cur' (likely inter-object RMSD) and 'intra_fit' (fitting rather than calculating).

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?

The description implies the usage context by saying 'between states within an object', contrasting with cross-object comparisons. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'rms_cur' or 'intra_fit', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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