list_available_forcefields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a non-destructive read operation via 'List all' and reveals the output fields, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or dependencies. For a straightforward listing tool, this is acceptable but not overly detailed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every phrase adds meaningful information: the content fields, the purpose ('decide which force field to use'), and no filler. Excellent efficiency.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple listing operation, the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool returns and why to use it. Including a note about return format would be a minor enhancement, but the description satisfies the core needs.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no need for parameter-level explanation. The description adds value by detailing what information is returned, which helps the agent know what to expect. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from it.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('built-in force fields'), along with the kind of information returned ('molecule targets, references, and applicability notes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recommend_forcefield, which actually recommends rather than lists.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to decide which force field to use.' This gives clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate and useful.

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