post_process

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates but is non-destructive. The description usefully clarifies what the mutation produces (fields and/or postProcessing/ data), adding value beyond the annotations. It still omits overwrite behavior on existing fields, the role of wait_seconds, and any failure/long-running-job semantics.

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 with no filler; the verb and effect lead. It is efficiently sized, though slightly terse given the tool's complexity.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves gaps: async/wait behavior, what 'args' does, and how output is subsequently retrieved (read_postprocessing). Annotations offload the safety profile, but more operational context would be needed for a higher score.

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 67%; case, func, time, and with_solver are well documented in the schema, while args and wait_seconds are undocumented anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not compensate for the two gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries most of the burden.

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 ('Run') and resource ('post-processing function object on saved results'), plus the observable effect ('writes fields and/or postProcessing/ data'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like run or read_postprocessing, but the resource is distinct enough to differentiate.

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 phrase 'on saved results' implies this runs after a solve has produced data, which gives implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g., read_postprocessing for reading existing output, or foam_reference('functions') for listing options only hinted at inside the schema).

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