check_validity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it by stating the tool reads the energy balance and reports whether the answer can be trusted, listing three concrete failure conditions. The verbs 'reads' and 'reports' also imply a read-only analysis with no side effects.

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 tightly structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short context statement, the key failure modes, then clean Args. Every sentence adds information and no filler is present.

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 two-parameter analysis tool with an output schema present and no annotations, the description covers the input precondition (completed job), what the tool inspects, the criteria it uses, and the meaning of the optional flag. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: job_name identifies the job to judge, and quasi_static gives a meaning-based condition with a concrete example and clarifies when kinetic energy matters. The job_name description is thin, but the quasi_static semantics are detailed and actionable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Judge whether a COMPLETED job is physically believable.' It further differentiates from status-only tools by stating that a green solver status only means the analysis reached the end, so this tool is the one to use for physical and energy-based trustworthiness.

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: use after a completed job when you need to know whether the result can be trusted, with explicit examples of failure signals. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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