physics_interactive_setup_flow

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the interactive nature (prompts user, configures boundaries) and mutation implied by 'configures'. However, it does not clarify if modifications are reversible, permission needs, or behavior in headless mode. Adds moderate value beyond structured fields.

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?

Description is well-structured with summary, enumerated steps, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. No redundant information, sentences are concise and front-loaded. Achieves clarity with minimal text.

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?

At 2 optional parameters, moderate complexity. Description explains the wizard flow but lacks details on edge cases (no boundaries found, user cancellation), return format specifics (no output schema), and prerequisites (e.g., model must have a geometry). Vague 'Boundary information and setup instructions' returns.

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?

Input schema has 0% coverage, but description provides an Args section with brief descriptions for both parameters (e.g., 'Name of the Laminar Flow physics interface' for physics_name). This adds meaning beyond schema defaults and types, though could include constraints like valid physics names.

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?

Clearly states it is an interactive setup wizard for Laminar Flow boundary conditions, with specific steps (list boundaries, prompt user, configure). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like physics_interactive_setup_heat (for heat transfer) and physics_setup_flow_boundaries (which likely automates the same task).

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?

Description implies interactive usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the automated alternative physics_setup_flow_boundaries. No guidance on prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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