nds_get_mass

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context by listing the exact quantities returned (mass excess, binding energy/A, beta-decay energy, atomic mass), which sets expectations for the output. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention error behavior, or discuss any limitations or permissions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then efficiently lists the specific data items. Every element adds value and there is no redundant information.

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 simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It specifies the data source (AME2020) and enumerates the return fields, which is essential without an output schema. It could add units or a note on error handling, but the current description provides sufficient context for an informed agent.

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 100% with adequate descriptions for Z (atomic number) and A (mass number). The description only reiterates that these parameters define a nuclide, adding no extra meaning about ranges, units, or relationships. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('atomic mass data'), and precise scope ('nuclide (Z, A) from AME2020'). It also enumerates the exact data returned (mass excess, binding energy/A, beta-decay energy, atomic mass), distinguishing it from sibling tools like nds_get_separation_energy and nds_get_q_value.

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 when to use this tool by specifying the data type and source (AME2020), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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