Mesh advisor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the exact formula used, that IJK counts are constrained to factors of 2/3/5 for FFT-solver friendliness, and that it works without the app.

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?

Front-loaded with the core computation and appropriately sized for a numerically non-trivial tool. The formula is dense but earns its place; the trailing Korean sentence and rule codes are marginally redundant but brief.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does so well, enumerating the outputs (cell sizes, per-axis IJK, resulting cells, total cell count). The only gap is not naming when to use this versus the other mesh tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that quality maps to D*/dx = 4/10/16 (coarse/moderate/fine) and that domain_xb drives the IJK proposal. That clarifies the enum's semantics beyond the schema's bare labels.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it computes cell-size advice from the design fire size, via the characteristic fire diameter D* and the D*/dx targets, and optionally proposes IJK per axis and total cell count. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like auto_fit_mesh, set_mesh_cell_size and auto_multimesh, which manipulate mesh objects rather than advise on sizing.

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 by the content ('Cell-size advice from the fire size', 'Works without the app'), signalling a pre-simulation advisory call that does not require the running app. However, it never states when to prefer this over auto_fit_mesh or when to supply cell_size vs quality, and no explicit alternative is named.

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