visualize_cfd_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool creates an artifact and returns its artifact_id, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, error conditions (e.g., what happens if the job is not converged), or persistence details. This is adequate for a simple creation tool but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, condition, and return value without any filler. 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 params) and the existence of an output schema (which likely documents the artifact_id return), the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit relationship to sibling tools like get_visualization_artifact for retrieving the artifact, but this is not critical.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('a visualization artifact for a converged job'), and explicitly mentions returning an 'artifact_id'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_visualization_artifact (which retrieves) and run_cfd_solver (which runs the simulation).

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 'for a converged job' implies the tool should be used after a solver job has completed, but there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives. The job_id parameter description in the schema provides more context, but the description itself offers limited usage guidance.

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