bake_physics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'bake to cache' but does not explain behavioral implications like whether it is destructive, requires pre-setup, or modifies existing simulations.

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 very concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. While it could include more detail, it is efficiently front-loaded with essential purpose and usage context.

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?

Given no output schema, minimal description, and no parameter explanation, the tool definition is incomplete for an agent to use effectively. Important aspects like parameter ranges and behavior are missing.

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 description provides no information about the two parameters (start and end) from the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent gains no additional meaning beyond the schema defaults.

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 bakes all physics simulations to cache, with a specific verb 'bake' and resource 'physics simulations'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'physics_bake' which may have overlapping functionality.

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 includes a usage hint ('Must be baked before rendering physics simulations'), indicating when to use the tool. Yet it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or clear alternatives.

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