physics

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or whether actions modify state. With no compensation from the description, the agent lacks understanding of potential impacts.

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 very short, but this brevity sacrifices clarity. It front-loads 'Physics config' and lists actions, which is somewhat structured, but the utility of the description is limited. Every sentence is used, but the content is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 high parameter count (10) and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the behavior of each action, parameter dependencies, or expected outputs. The tool is complex, but the description provides almost no contextual completeness.

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 100%, with each parameter having a brief description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing action names; it does not explain which parameters apply to which actions. The schema already provides basic context, so the description offers minimal extra value.

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 states 'Physics config' and lists four actions, giving a general sense of the tool's purpose. However, it is vague and does not clearly specify what each action does or how the tool is used. The phrase 'Use help tool for full docs' suggests incompleteness.

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 vs alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or scenarios where physics should be chosen over sibling tools like animation or navigation. The instruction to use the help tool indicates the description is insufficient.

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