get_logic_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (retrieval), specifies the output format (JSON string with components, descriptions, metadata), and mentions error possibility. No side effects or permissions are noted, but for a retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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 efficient, with a clear topic sentence, then structured parameter and return info. It is not overly verbose, though the examples are helpful. Slightly more conciseness could be achieved, but it remains well-organized.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return type, and linkage to sibling tool list_library. It leaves no ambiguity for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description provides comprehensive information for the logic_id parameter: format (filename without extension), prerequisite (use list_library first), and examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 it retrieves parsed physics context for a specific Kangaroo2 or Karamba3D archetype, specifying the domain and return content. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_library by directing users to use that first to get valid IDs.

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 explicitly advises to use list_library() first to see available IDs, providing a clear usage prerequisite. While it doesn't list alternatives or exclusion cases, the single-parameter tool is straightforward and the guidance is sufficient.

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