get_forcefield_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Return the complete content') but does not disclose any error handling, prerequisites, or side effects. Since it's a simple retriever, some behavioral context is assumed but not explicitly stated.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The note about file placement is a single, relevant sentence. The Args section is clearly formatted with examples. No unnecessary words.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and a simple retrieval action, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the exact files returned and where they should be used. It could mention the return format (e.g., plain text or dict) but this is not critical for a straightforward read tool.

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 must compensate. It does so by providing example forcefield names (TraPPE-CO2, TraPPE-N2, TraPPE-CH4), giving meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'Forcefield Name'. This is sufficient for a single parameter, though it could be improved by listing all valid options or pointing to list_available_forcefields.

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 it returns the complete content of two specific files (pseudo_atoms.def and force_field_mixing_rules.def) for a given force field, using a clear verb ('return') and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_force_field_def, which generate rather than retrieve files.

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 provides clear context that the returned files must be placed in the simulation working directory alongside simulation.input, implying the tool is used when setting up a simulation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when generating new force fields), which would merit a 5.

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