Run the 12-domain physics solver on a blueprint to receive a simulation snapshot and pass/warn/fail proof metrics.
Run the 12-domain physics solver on a blueprint and return a simulation snapshot plus proof metrics (pass/warn/fail).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No | Solver steps of recommended dt to run before snapshotting. | |
| blueprint | Yes | Anvil blueprint: a schematic graph for one domain. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 that the call is a solver run and that it returns a snapshot plus pass/warn/fail metrics, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not state whether the call is read-only, whether the blueprint is mutated, or how failures manifest at runtime.
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 entire description is one dense sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and the key output types at the end. There is no filler, no repeated schema text, and the proof-metric parenthetical adds compact, useful detail.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with a rich nested blueprint schema, the description plus schema covers the input side well, and the return value is summarized despite there being no output schema. It lacks an explicit safety/side-effect statement and more detail on proof-metric semantics, so it does not reach 5.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3: the schema already documents 'blueprint' as an Anvil blueprint and 'steps' with default/min/max semantics. The description only restates that a blueprint is the input and adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run'), names the resource ('the 12-domain physics solver'), and specifies the input ('a blueprint') and outputs ('simulation snapshot plus proof metrics'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like anvil.forge, anvil.domains, and anvil.export.
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 phrase 'Run the 12-domain physics solver on a blueprint' establishes a clear context for when the tool applies, and the mention of proof metrics suggests it is the right choice when validation evidence is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.