calibration_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It says what it returns (list of methods with attributes) but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. As a listing tool, the risk is low, but the description does not explicitly assure safety or describe any potential quirks.

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 primary purpose ('Every calibration-stage method runnable on DesignSafe') and then lists the included attributes. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or irrelevant 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?

For a simple enumeration tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the content and scope of the tool. However, it does not explicitly place the tool in the larger workflow (e.g., that it serves as input to planning), but this is not essential given the output schema and simple nature.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but there is nothing to add. The schema already shows an empty properties object, and the description's mention of what is returned is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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: listing every calibration-stage method runnable on DesignSafe, including its engine, return value, and status. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'plan_calibration' which likely plans rather than lists. The resource and scope are explicit.

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. It does not mention that this is a reference for available calibration methods before planning, nor does it exclude other tools. The usage context is only implied, not explicitly stated.

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