feko_parse_out

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral context: parsing requires no Feko installation, and it names the categories of data extracted. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only with no side effects, nor how malformed files are handled.

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 definition is front-loaded with domain context followed by a compact list of parsed contents. Every phrase contributes, though the bracketed Altair Feko domain metadata is somewhat heavy relative to the core parse instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in the description, and the description still helpfully enumerates what will be extracted. The remaining gap is the undocumented out_file parameter and the absence of explicit usage exclusions.

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 0% for the single required parameter out_file. The description partially compensates by indicating the input is a Feko .out report, but it adds no path format, file-location, or file-validity details beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource: 'Parse a Feko .out report'. It further enumerates the extracted artifacts (solution frequencies, per-source impedance/current/power, warnings/errors), making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishable from unrelated siblings like drawio_read or eagle_read_design.

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 strongly implied: use this when you have a Feko .out report to parse. The parenthetical '(no Feko needed)' clarifies a key dependency condition. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance or exclusions, and no sibling tool is named.

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