mz_toolbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the tool runs via ToolboxShell.exe in non-GUI modeaine, and the wait/timeout parameters imply synchronous vs asynchronous execution. However, it does not disclose what the tool outputs or returns (e.g., exit code, job ID), what side effects occur (e.g., generated files), or whether errors are surfaced. This is only partial transparency.

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 highly efficient: one sentence establishes the purpose and supported file types, followed by a clean bullet list of all parameters. Everything is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler text. It earns its keep with every word.

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 an external-process-execution tool with no output schema, an agent would need to know what the invocation returns, how to interpret failures, and how this relates to sibling tools like mz_jobs or mz_progress. The description explains inputs and execution flags but is silent on return values, logging, and post-run behavior. Given the tool's complexity, this is a notable gap.

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. The 'Args' section defines each of the five parameters: setup as an absolute path, extra_args as appended arguments, year as an optional MIKE Zero year, wait as whether to synchronously wait, and timeout as the wait limit when wait=True. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. extra_args is somewhat vague, but overall the parameter semantics are clearly communicated.

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 explicitly states that the tool runs a Toolbox setup headlessly using ToolboxShell.exeaine, listing the supported file extensions (.mzt / .21t / .3t / .lpkt / .mst). The verb '运行' (run) plus the specific resource 'Toolbox setup' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as mz_run (likely for engine simulation) or mz_read_setup (reading setups). This is a distinct, unambiguous purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings. It states that it runs setup files without a GUI, but never mentions alternatives like mz_run or mz_read_setup, nor does it say 'use this tool for .mzt setups and that tool for engine runs'. The only implicit hint is the file extension list, which is not sufficient for an agent to make an informed selection.

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