Drop Impact

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

With readOnlyHint already in annotations, the description goes further by explaining the exact mathematical model (G_avg = h/d, g_peak = pulse_factor·G_avg, v = √(2gh)), the role of mass, and the 'NO solver' behavior. It also discloses that fidelity is 'exact' (within the energy-balance simplification) and that certain conditions trigger escalation, which is valuable behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, then parameter semantics, model formulas, and finally the return object. Every clause adds useful information, and the use of separators (semicolons, |) and inline notation keeps it scannable. It is longer than typical, but the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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 that there is no output schema and annotations only provide readOnlyHint, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the input constraints, the calculation method, the pulse options, the effect of mass, and lists every return field. The escalation path for more detailed analysis is also included. An agent has everything needed to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains crush_distance_mm as 'available cushion/crumple stroke', deceleration_limit_g as 'fragility spec', and explicitly states that exactly one must be provided. It defines the pulse parameter with its three enum-like options and their factors, and explains that mass_g only affects peak_force_n and energy_j. This is thorough and compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool is a 'Drop/impact screen by exact energy balance (NO solver)' and immediately clarifies that it computes deceleration or required crush distance from input parameters. It distinguishes itself from the heavier simulation tool by naming 'escalate_to='impact_dynamics_submit'' for cases needing stress or edge/corner detail, making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (quick energy-balance screening for impact) and explicitly says to escalate to impact_dynamics_submit when the part is stressed or edge/corner effects matter. It doesn't compare against the sibling bar_impact, but the geometry-specific nature of that tool makes the distinction obvious enough.

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