palace_mesh_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose side effects (writes .msh + .tags.json) and the shape of the return (groups plus a mesh report with exact unknowns per order). It omits permissions, overwrite behavior, and whether existing files are clobbered.

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?

A single dense block that front-loads the purpose and then the template signatures. No filler sentences, though the inline parameter lists are cramped and harder to parse than a structured list.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the return (groups, mesh report, unknowns per order) and the written artifacts. It stops short of explaining how template-specific arguments should be supplied given additionalProperties=true, which is the key gap for correct invocation.

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 top-level schema documents only template/out, but the description compensates by embedding the per-template argument signatures (a,b,d,h; w,h,length,eps_r,h_mesh; etc.) including the ports enum and f_ghz. This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though types and defaults remain unspecified.

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 (build and mesh) and resource (template model with Gmsh), and enumerates the three template kinds. An agent can identify the tool's function immediately, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with palace_mesh_report or palace_build_config.

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 by the template enumeration: you use this when you want a predefined model meshed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. the sibling tools (e.g., palace_mesh_report for existing meshes, palace_build_config for config building), so the agent must infer routing.

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