physics_add_laminar_flow

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action and return type. It does not disclose whether the tool requires a current model, what happens if physics already exists, or any side effects.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It wastes no words, though it could include more usage context without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema, the description does not elaborate on return values beyond 'Created physics info'. It lacks error conditions, prerequisite model state, and interaction with other tools, making it incomplete for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining domain_selection and model_name defaults. However, the explanations are minimal and do not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Add Laminar Flow physics') and the resource ('for fluid dynamics'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like physics_add_electrostatics or physics_add_heat_transfer.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. An agent has no context for choosing laminar flow over other physics.

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