openfoam_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behaviors: it creates a new staged case and runs checkMesh. It omits failure behavior (what happens if checkMesh fails), whether the source export is modified, permission needs, and any rollback semantics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its immediate side effect come first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But as an unannotated, two-parameter pipeline step, the definition omits when to invoke it relative to openfoam_prepare/inspect and what the parameters mean, leaving real gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning for session_id or export_manifest_path. Only a weak hint exists that the manifest must be 'verified'. Both required parameters are effectively undocumented.

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 (Convert) and resource (a verified export into a new staged case) plus a side action (run checkMesh), so the operation is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from sibling openfoam_prepare and openfoam_inspect, leaving the agent to infer the pipeline position.

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?

No explicit when/when-not or named alternatives among the openfoam_* siblings. The adjective 'verified' implies a precondition (the export must already be verified) but this is left implicit rather than stated as a rule.

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