study_solve

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

With no annotations, the behavior is partially disclosed: it solves a study, can wait or return immediately, and returns a solution status or error. However, it does not detail side effects, resource locking, or whether the study is modified.

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 uses a compact docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and no word is wasted.

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?

The tool is simple with four optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers inputs and return value adequately, but does not specify the format of the solution status or potential error conditions.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains each parameter: study_name (None for all studies), model_name (default current), wait (blocking toggle), timeout (only when wait=True). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 solves a study synchronously by default. 'Solve a study' is a specific verb-resource pair, and 'synchronous by default' distinguishes it from the sibling study_solve_async.

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 explains the wait parameter, indicating that by default the tool waits for completion but can return immediately. This gives context for synchronous vs asynchronous usage, but does not explicitly name alternatives like study_solve_async or study_wait.

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