list_solvers

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' is consistent with that. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are grouped by family and search is case-insensitive. It does not detail output format, pagination, or any potential filtering edge cases, but for a read-only listing tool the additional context is sufficient.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second explains the optional parameter. No filler or redundant content; every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no required inputs, the description covers purpose, grouping, and search behavior. Annotations cover the read-only safety profile, and no output schema is present, but an agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents the single 'search' parameter, including that it is optional, case-insensitive, substring-based, and provides concrete examples ('openfoam', 'fds6.9'). This goes well beyond the bare string|null schema definition.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and a distinct resource ('solvers/scripts available on cloudHPC'), and adds the organizational detail ('grouped by family'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_machine_options, list_storage, list_results, and list_simulations without ambiguity.

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 description implies clear usage: call this when you need to discover available solvers/scripts on cloudHPC, optionally using the search substring. There are no direct sibling alternatives for this exact resource, so no exclusions are needed, but explicit 'use when' guidance is not stated.

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