Physics Sandbox

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: pairwise parallel interaction and results sorted by intensity. It still doesn't explain what an 'event' or 'intensity' looks like in the response.

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?

Two tight sentences with the mechanism front-loaded before the usage hint. Slightly poetic phrasing ('chain of chaos') costs a little precision but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify return semantics, and 'events come back sorted by intensity' is the only hint. For a 2-parameter simulation tool, the input semantics and output shape are both under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain the '2-8 things' bound (matching minItems/maxItems) and the single 'setting' string, but never clarifies what kinds of values 'things' should be or how 'setting' is used, leaving the core input ambiguous.

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 conveys a simulation: drop 2-8 objects into a shared setting where all pairs interact. It is evocative but doesn't specify what a 'thing' is or how this differs from siblings like physics_interact or collision_engine, so an agent can't cleanly discriminate between them.

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?

'Use it to narrate a chain of chaos' implies a creative-narration context but names no alternatives and gives no when-not conditions. With physics_interact and collision_engine as siblings, routing guidance is absent.

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