femm_smartmesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: the persistence difference between document scope (saved with the model) and global scope (whole engine), and that 'default' defers to each file. The side effect (cutting element count) is also surfaced. It doesn't cover the session parameter or rate/permission concerns.

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-loads the purpose, then lists the two meaningful parameters' values, then the usage rule. Four tight clauses with no padding; there is no better ordering for this content.

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 simple config setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, allowed values, scope persistence, and usage guidance. The only missing piece is the session parameter. Nothing else an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 schema offers no enums, so the description must compensate. It does so for two of three params: it enumerates state values (on | off | default) and explains scope values with their storage semantics. The session parameter is left undocumented in both schema and description, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (smart meshing) and immediately parenthesizes its function: 'automatic refinement near small features.' That defines the operation precisely enough to act on. It does not explicitly contrast with mesh-related siblings like femm_create_mesh or femm_mesh_arrays, so it falls short of 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use rule: 'Turn off for very large models to cut element count, then set mesh sizes explicitly on block labels.' That is real operational guidance, not just implied usage. It does not name alternatives or exclusions beyond this one case.

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