get_solution_information

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. By mentioning 'solver output' and 'energy histories,' it provides necessary context about the nature of the returned data. However, it provides no constraints, limitations, or resource implications beyond this basic context.

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 definition is concise, but the phrasing 'to find what this release exposes' is weak and lacks professional specificity. While not verbose, the language does not make optimal use of its single sentence.

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?

Given the complexity of retrieving 'solver output' and the lack of an output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent needs more guidance on whether the result is a single object, a list of records, or a complex nested structure to use this tool effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description must carry the entire load for the 'analysis_index' parameter. The description only includes 'Args: analysis_index,' which is merely a name listing and adds zero meaningful semantic value or usage guidance beyond what the schema title implies.

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 identifies the resource—'Solution Information object'—and the data contained within it (solver output, histories). However, the action ('Members... to find') is vague, making the primary verb unclear compared to sibling tools like 'get_analysis_settings'.

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?

There are no instructions regarding when to use this tool versus others. It merely describes what the tool contains without providing any comparative guidance or use-case context for the agent.

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