get_molecule_definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read operation (returns content) and specifies the file location, but it does not disclose error behavior, return format, or case sensitivity. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section reinforces examples without unnecessary verbosity, and every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description gives the essential purpose and path, but it omits error handling and does not point to the sibling tool list_available_molecules for discovering valid names. This makes it incomplete for an agent that needs to recover from invalid inputs or navigate the available molecule set.

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 schema only defines the parameter name with no description, so the description's examples (CO2, N2, CH4, H2O, helium) add valuable semantics by showing valid values. It also states the molecule must be built-in, providing a constraint not present in the 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 the tool returns the content of a RASPA2 molecule definition file for a built-in molecule, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_available_molecules or generate_molecule_def, so it lacks full sibling distinction.

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 implies usage by showing the file path and example molecule names, giving some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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