foam_info

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds valuable context about what the tool surfaces: version, flavour, paths, core counts, and ParaView details. It does not explain return formatting, but for a simple info tool this is a meaningful behavioral supplement.

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?

A single compact sentence with key terms front-loaded, no filler. It is not a complete sentence, but every word carries information and nothing needs to be removed.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must tell the agent what information it will receive. It does so by enumerating version, flavour, paths, cores, and ParaView, which is enough for an agent to know when this tool is relevant and 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level semantics to convey. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 names a specific resource and scope: OpenFOAM installation, server configuration, and resources, with concrete examples (version, flavour, paths, cores, ParaView). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like foam_reference, which likely covers reference material rather than installation/config details. It lacks an explicit verb, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 is provided and no alternative tools are mentioned. The agent can infer that this tool is for querying installation/config info, but it receives no help deciding between foam_info and foam_reference or other list/introspection tools.

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