physics_get_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('quick reference guide for the physics type'), which helps, but says nothing about whether this is read-only, whether it consumes a model/session, or any prerequisites. Adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a scannable bulleted list of valid values. Mostly tight, though the 'Args:/Returns:' docstring boilerplate is redundant given the schema already names the parameter.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the purpose, the valid inputs, and a rough sense of the return value. Only the absence of usage context against sibling reference tools keeps it out of the top band.

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% and the single physics_type property has no enum or description. The description compensates strongly by enumerating all eight valid string values with a short gloss for each, which an agent could not obtain from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (quick guide for a physics type), and the enumerated type list makes the scope concrete. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling physics_get_available, though it never contrasts itself with docs_get or physics_get_available explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent cannot tell from the description whether to reach for this guide versus docs_get, physics_get_available, or modeling_best_practices. Usage is only implied by the type list.

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