ms_forcite

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 behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Run a Forcite task' without explaining whether this submits a job, modifies files, requires confirmation (despite a confirmToken parameter), or how dryRun affects execution. This is a significant omission for a computational tool.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is so sparse that it provides almost no actionable information. While conciseness is valued, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity; the sentence does not earn its place by adding meaningful 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?

Given 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is radically incomplete. It omits the purpose of each parameter, default behaviors, return values, and any side effects. An agent would not be able to invoke this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameters. It only mentions the input document, but does not clarify the meaning of 'task', 'cores', 'dryRun', 'project', 'settings', or 'confirmToken'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Run a Forcite task' on an input document, and specifies the location constraint 'under the MS-MCP work root.' It distinguishes this from GUI-based Forcite siblings (e.g., ms_gui_forcite_optimize_current) by implying a compute operation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Slight deduction for not naming sibling tools, but the purpose is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or when to prefer this over other computation tools like ms_castep or the GUI Forcite helpers. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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