list_physics_materials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state potential side effects, permissions required, or the format of results. It offers minimal insight beyond the tool's name.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no redundant information. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to parse at a glance. However, the severe brevity borders on under-specification, but as a standalone sentence it is well-structured.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the 'path' parameter, explain what the returned list contains, or distinguish from other listing tools. The lack of return-value documentation makes it hard for an agent to know what to expect.

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 schema already provides a description for the 'path' parameter ('Subdirectory to search'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb ('List') and resource ('PhysicsMaterials'), making the basic action understandable. However, it lacks any differentiation from sibling tools like list_materials or read_physics_material, and it does not specify scope or output. It is more than a tautology but still minimal.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the optional 'path' parameter or offer any context for selection among the many sibling list/read tools. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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