cst_get_solver_info

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It notes that behavior differs by mode (queries vs describes), which is helpful. However, it omits details like whether a connection is required, authentication needs, or side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 description is two concise sentences with clear structure. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action and key modes.

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?

Given no output schema, more detail about the return value (e.g., structure or fields) would improve completeness. The description says 'solver configuration and status' but doesn't specify what that includes, leaving the agent to infer.

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 has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no extra parameter info because none are needed. Per guidelines, for zero parameters baseline is 4, and the description meets that standard.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves solver configuration and status, with explicit distinction between connected and offline modes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like cst_get_mesh_info or cst_get_simulation_status.

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 description provides context on when to use the tool (connected vs offline mode), which helps decide applicability. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list is extensive and this tool is unique.

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