list_solver_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but it does not disclose whether the scan is top-level or recursive, what happens with a nonexistent or non-solver directory, or whether hidden/large result files are included. The output schema covers return shape, which lowers the remaining burden.

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?

Two compact lines: the capability first, then the argument sourcing. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the file-type examples are packed inline rather than enumerated in a 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description plus the cross-reference to get_solve_status covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The only meaningful gap is unspecified behavior on a bad or non-existent directory, which matters less for a listing call.

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 the schema itself only labels the field 'Directory' with no description, so the description must compensate — and it does by tying the value to working_dir from get_solve_status, which is the single most useful piece of information for filling this argument. It still doesn't specify format expectations (absolute vs relative path) or that a solver deck directory is required.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus a well-scoped resource (LS-DYNA output files in a solver directory), with concrete examples (d3plot, d3hsp, glstat, binout) that make the scope unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from list_restart_files and tail_solver_file by naming the output-file family, but never states the distinction explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(the working_dir from get_solve_status)' supplies a real workflow precondition, telling the agent where the directory value comes from. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over list_restart_files, tail_solver_file, or read_d3plot, and no exclusions or failure conditions.

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