nds_get_cross_section_table

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

The description discloses the behavioral difference between raw and sampled modes, including the ENDF-6 NBT/INT interpolation rules. However, it does not mention pagination, default parameter behavior, or error conditions, and there are no annotations to fall back on.

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 two sentences, efficiently conveying the core action and mode-specific behavior with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, 8 required) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to choose between mt and reaction, energy range defaults, or pagination, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 adds some meaning for 'mode' by explaining what each mode returns, but it does not explain key parameters like e_min_eV, e_max_eV, n_points, limit, and offset, which also lack schema descriptions. With schema coverage at 50%, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving JENDL-5 pointwise cross-section tables and explains the two return modes. It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like nds_interpolate_cross_section or nds_get_reaction_info.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nds_interpolate_cross_section or nds_get_reaction_info. The description only explains the modes, not the use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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