openfoam_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. 'Audit' and 'inspect' imply a read-only operation, but the description never confirms this, nor does it mention side effects, required permissions, or the relationship between session_id and the stored export.

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 or redundancy, which is ideal for scanning. It is arguably undersized for a three-required-parameter tool, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and fully undescribed required parameters, the description omits the operational context an agent needs: how the export manifest is produced, what the session must contain, and how this differs from the sibling inspection 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?

All three required parameters (session_id, export_manifest_path, case_dir) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains the role of the manifest versus the case directory, leaving the distinction between export_manifest_path and case_dir entirely to inference from parameter 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?

States a specific verb ('Audit') and enumerates the resources inspected: polyMesh addressing, names, geometry and patch ranges. This is far more concrete than a tautology, but it offers no differentiation from siblings like mesh_inspect, geometry_inspect, or openfoam_probe, which an agent must distinguish by name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as openfoam_probe or mesh_inspect. The agent must infer from the word 'stored' that this operates on previously exported mesh data rather than a live case.

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