List raw namelists

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the description's main job is adding context. It does disclose that these lines are carried through unchanged and exist because the GUI lacks dialogs, which is useful behavioral framing, but it doesn't say who added them or how to interpret the order/contents of returned lines. The unexplained GEN-016/SIM-002/SIM-006 reference adds noise rather than transparency.

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 core sentence is reasonably tight and front-loaded, but the appended '[bulc-mcp rules] GEN-016, SIM-002, SIM-006 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' is an unexplained instruction that would confuse an agent reading the description cold. It occupies roughly half the text without clarifying the tool's use.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to explain what raw namelists are and when they appear. It does say they are GUI-less pass-through settings, which is helpful, but omits how to add/remove them (add_raw_namelist/remove_raw_namelist) and what the returned lines look like. Adequate but leaves clear gaps for a tool whose whole value is interpreting opaque output.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to describe arguments and does not attempt to, which 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (raw namelists), and the parenthetical names the actual namelist groups (&RADI, &PRES, &COMB, &ZONE, &MULT) plus the qualifier 'carried through unchanged', which distinguishes it from related tools like list_meshes or list_surfaces. It does not explicitly reference its closest siblings add_raw_namelist/remove_raw_namelist, keeping it below 5.

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 'settings the GUI has no dialog for but the deck and the engine keep' implies these are untouched pass-through settings, which hints at when to look here, but no explicit when-to-use or when-to-choose-this-over-get_simulation_settings/list_meshes guidance is given. The trailing bulc-mcp rule reference (GEN-016, SIM-002, SIM-006) is not explained.

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