check_solver_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'checks' status and coefficients, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive, how it behaves if the job does not exist, or any polling/blocking behavior. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Check') and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks guidance on when to use it relative to siblings and does not disclose behavioral specifics (e.g., job lifecycle). The schema covers parameters and output, but the absence of annotations and usage context makes it less complete than ideal.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter job_id, with a helpful description indicating it is returned by run_cfd_solver or run_airfoil_workflow. This provides meaning beyond the parameter name, but the tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool checks the current status and coefficients of an existing CFD job, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('current status and coefficients'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate geometry, mesh, run the solver, visualize results, or get visualization artifacts.

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 rather than explicitly stated. The mention of 'existing CFD job' suggests it should be used after a job is created, and the parameter description clarifies that job_id comes from run_cfd_solver or run_airfoil_workflow. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusion of alternatives, relying on the agent to infer the workflow order.

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