foam_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, static lookup. The description adds the domain scope of the lookup, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about e.g. result shape or whether large topic lists are truncated.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and puts the informative domain list after the colon. No filler or repetition, though the enumerated list is somewhat long for the value it adds.

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 read-only reference lookup with no output schema and fully covered parameters, the description gives an adequate sense of what the tool returns. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note the lookup is against a packaged/static reference rather than the current case.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the top-level topic enum and filter are fully documented in the schema itself. The description echoes several topic domains (models, function objects, solvers, app options) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('what OpenFOAM supports') and enumerates the domains covered: boundary conditions, models, function objects, solvers, app options. This clearly separates it from case/mutation siblings like create_case or run, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the potentially overlapping foam_info.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of lookup domains – an agent can infer it should call this when it needs valid type names or app options rather than inspecting a case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative or exclusion to route against.

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