physics_boundary_selection

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation and a vague return of 'Configuration confirmation'. It lacks information about side effects (e.g., whether existing conditions are overwritten), required permissions, or error handling, which are critical for a mutation 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 well-structured with sections but contains some redundancy (e.g., listing steps and then repeating information in 'Args'). It is moderately concise but could be tightened without losing clarity.

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 the lack of output schema and low schema description coverage, the description provides adequate parameter semantics and usage examples. However, it omits details like return value structure, error scenarios, and confirmation of side effects, leaving some gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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%, but the description compensates by listing each parameter in the 'Args:' section, providing examples and explaining the usage of 'properties' with specific dictionary keys for different physics. This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.

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 is for 'Generic boundary condition setup with boundary selection' and provides specific examples for different physics interfaces. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'physics_configure_boundary', which likely has overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage by listing steps and common boundary condition types per physics, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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