solver_progress

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful disclosure about what the report contains (state classification, residuals, Courant, continuity, ETA), but says nothing about behavior when no log exists, how the 'most recent log containing time steps' default is chosen, or the cost of requesting a plot.

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 the key output content front-loaded after the subject. It is efficient, though the parenthetical ellipsis in the state list is slightly loose.

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, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so by enumerating the report contents. What is missing is failure behavior and the distinction from read_log, but for a read-only diagnostic with fully documented params this is close to sufficient.

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 schema itself documents the log default, case naming/path rules, and the plot flag. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource (a solver log) and the concrete output of the tool (a convergence report with state, residuals/trends, Courant, continuity, ETA), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like read_log because it yields an interpreted report rather than raw text, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with read_log or job_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus read_log, job_status, or case_summary, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g. a run must exist) or exclusions. The context is only implied by the field list, which is not the same as guidance.

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