femm_solve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this is a composite of three operations, that solving can be slow for large AC/nonlinear models, and critically that a loaded solution goes stale and does not self-update after changes. It omits what happens to any existing file on disk and any permission/auth requirements.

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 core action and keeps the parameter notes tight, with no redundant sentences. It reads as a dense run-on block, but each clause adds actionable information.

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?

Compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating return values (solve time, node/element counts, solution file) and describes the post-condition for downstream tools. What holds it back is the three undocumented parameters, notably the load_solution toggle that materially changes the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 0% and only 2 of 5 params are addressed: 'path' (with default resolution) and 'timeout' (with a rationale for large models). 'session', 'hide_window', and especially 'load_solution' — which contradicts the tool's own 'load the solution' framing by being togglable — are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 compound verb set (save, solve, load) on a specific resource (the solution), and even names the underlying API calls (xi_saveas + xi_analyze + xi_loadsolution). This clearly distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like femm_save, femm_load_solution, and femm_create_mesh.

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 clear when-to-use rule ('Re-run after every geometry/material/current change') and a downstream precondition ('After this the post-processing tools ... work'). It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. calling femm_load_solution alone) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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