get_solver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the payload contents (signature, parameters, notes, examples), which is useful, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior (unknown solver name), whether version strings are validated, or what happens when a version lacks the solver.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter nuance appended; nothing is wasted or buried.

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 covers return values, so the description need not. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the undefined 'name' semantics and the absent link to list_solvers as a discovery step leave meaningful 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%, so the description must compensate. It does well for pylops_version, giving the format example '2.6' and the default behavior (latest), but leaves 'name' completely undefined — the agent must guess it is an exact PyLops solver identifier rather than a search term.

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 and resource ('Get signature, parameters, notes and examples of a PyLops solver') and enumerates what is returned, which distinguishes it from list_solvers and get_operator. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get_proxsolver or get_operator, which share the 'get_<thing>' shape.

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 only guidance concerns the pylops_version default; there is no statement of when to call this instead of list_solvers (discovery) or get_operator (a different resource). An agent must infer the lookup-by-name workflow entirely.

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