nds_get_reaction_info

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the return of data and lists output fields, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens for invalid targets, whether any authentication is needed, or any potential errors. For a seemingly simple read operation, the description leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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, compact sentence that leads with the action verb and resource, then lists the output fields. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and appropriately structured for quick scanning.

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 description lists expected output fields but fails to explain their meaning (e.g., what 'mt' stands for, units of e_min_eV and e_max_eV, or the format of the channel list). With no output schema, this is a notable gap. However, the focus on JENDL-5 and the specific field list provides enough context for a basic understanding.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the schema does most of the work. The tool description adds no parameter-specific explanations; it only lists output fields. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema covers parameters well, and the projectile's enum makes its meaning clear.

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 action ('Return available JENDL-5 reaction channels'), specifies the exact data source (JENDL-5), and lists the output fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nds_get_cross_section_table and nds_interpolate_cross_section, which focus on numeric cross-section data rather than channel listings.

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 the tool: to get reaction channel metadata for a given target. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, such as using cross-section tools if the user needs numerical data. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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