cfx_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only lists action names without explaining side effects, blocking behavior, or return values. For instance, it does not clarify that wait_solver blocks until completion or that start_solver may launch background processes, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no redundant phrasing. The list of actions is compact and the sentence about the external agent layer provides important exclusion guidance without wasting words.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown) and eight distinct actions, the description is sparse. It does not detail what each action does, what parameters are required per action, or what output to expect. For a tool with such varied behavior, an agent would struggle to invoke actions like write_def or get_results_file correctly without additional context.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by enumerating the allowed action values (start_pre, import_mesh, etc.), which are not present as an enum in the schema. It also gives concrete examples (file paths, launch options, timeout settings) that clarify the flexible 'params' object.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('CFX lifecycle or artifact action'), and it enumerates the exact actions (start_pre, import_mesh, etc.). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like run_code and validate_code, which focus on Python code execution rather than predefined CFX operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for focused CFX lifecycle/artifact actions) and explicitly directs users to the external agent layer for custom PyCFX code generation, which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings like run_code or session_status, so the guidance is not exhaustive.

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