openfoam_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free discovery operation, nor whether it requires the server to have a configured OpenFOAM install, nor what happens when none is found. 'Probe' hints at non-mutation but the description never confirms it.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the core notion (target of the probe) is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a no-argument tool, though it is arguably under-specified rather than maximally tight.

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 and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, so the structured data carries most of the load. What is missing is the usage relationship to the other openfoam_* siblings and any behavioral framing, which is the main remaining gap for this otherwise simple tool.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema, and it correctly implies the operation is configured entirely server-side.

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?

The description states a verb (probe) and resources (the server-configured OpenFOAM distribution and converter commands), so the purpose is broadly identifiable. However, 'probe' is vague about what is actually discovered or returned, and there is no differentiation from the adjacent openfoam_prepare, openfoam_convert, and openfoam_inspect siblings. It reads as adequate-but-thin rather than specific.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus the sibling openfoam_* tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that 'probe' is a discovery/status step likely run before prepare or convert. No explicit guidance is offered.

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