physics_simulate

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the internal ordered phases and cites the intuitive physics engine, adding behavioral context beyond the name. However, it does not mention side effects, return format, or whether the tool mutates state, which is relevant given the absence of annotations.

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, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds process detail and citations, but the citations are likely unnecessary for tool invocation and add noise. Overall, it is efficient without being overly terse.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It gives an overview of the process but omits critical details such as expected input format, meaning of top_k, and what the simulation returns. The agent lacks enough information to confidently invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 explain the parameters. It does not mention 'scene' or 'top_k' at all. The description's generic 'detect scene type' gives only a weak hint about the scene parameter, while top_k is completely unexplained. The agent would have no way to know what top_k controls or how to format the scene input.

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's function with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('mental physics simulation'), and outlines a multi-step process (detect scene, extract quantities, recall laws, play forward). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like numeric_reasoning or reason by focusing on physics simulation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or competing tools, and the context is only implied by the name and description. The description lacks statements like 'use this for physics scene understanding' or 'instead of numeric_reasoning when physical dynamics are involved.'

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