nds_interpolate_cross_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the exact interpolation rules (ENDF-6 NBT/INT), which is beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any potential side effects, though they are likely minimal for this type of lookup.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's function: interpolation, JENDL-5, specific energy, and ENDF-6 rules.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits how to identify the nuclide (Z, A, state), how to select a reaction (mt or reaction), and what the expected return value is. This makes it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly without additional research.

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 50%, with state, projectile, mt, and reaction lacking schema descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the mention of 'specific energy,' and does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It fails to explain how to specify a reaction via mt or reaction, or the role of projectile/state.

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 an interpolation operation for JENDL-5 cross sections at a specific energy, using specific ENDF-6 NBT/INT rules. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nds_get_cross_section_table, which likely returns a table rather than a single interpolated 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 the tool is for single-energy interpolation, contrasting with the table-based sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so while context is clear, it stops short of providing explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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