femm_problem_define

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context beyond the schema: the depth default emits a warning ('set it!'), parameters are physics-specific, and the argument order differs per physics via the 'Orders used' mapping. It still omits whether the call mutates/resets existing state or what failure modes look like, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized as a compact per-parameter key list plus the physics-specific argument orders. Dense but every line carries meaning for a 10-parameter tool; the 'Orders used' line is telegraphic but useful, not padding.

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 10-param, zero-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers nearly all parameters, their defaults, and per-physics applicability. Missing pieces are the 'session' parameter, mutation/reset behavior, and error semantics, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, and it largely does: it explains units (with aliases mm/cm/m/in/um), problem_type semantics ('planar | axi' with x=r>=0), depth, frequency, precision, min_angle, ac_solver, prev_solution and time_step. It leaves the 'session' parameter undocumented, which caps it below 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Define the problem for the current physics', and adds that it wraps xi_probdef with the right argument order. An agent can tell this apart from femm_problem_info (introspection) and femm_new_document (creation). It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied (set up the physics before meshing/solving) and per-parameter applicability is given, e.g. 'frequency (Hz): magnetics and currentflow only' and 'prev_solution, time_step: heatflow transient only'. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives routing (e.g. relative to femm_new_document or femm_problem_info), leaving usage to inference.

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