read_implicit_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the returned contents, the file-resolution fallback order (newest messag[nn] -> mes0000 -> lsrun.stdout.txt), and the meaning of recoverable DIVERGENCE warnings. It omits error behavior when no messag file exists and does not explicitly state read-only semantics.

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-loaded with purpose, then usage, then an Args block — a sensible order with little waste. It is dense and has a truncated token ('messag'), but every sentence contributes 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; parameters are well covered and the intended use case is stated. The remaining gap is failure/edge behavior (missing or ambiguous messag files) for a tool whose value depends on picking the right input file.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: `name` gets a detailed default-resolution rule plus the lsrun.stdout.txt alternative, and `max_steps` is explained as 'the last N steps are returned in steps'. Only `directory` is left implicit as the location of the solver files.

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+resource: read implicit (statics/dynamics) solver progress from the messag file, and enumerates exactly what is extracted (iterations to converge, stiffness reformations, residual norms, convergence flag, totals, divergence warnings). The implicit-solver framing implicitly contrasts with the explicit-oriented siblings (read_glstat, scan_solver_messages), but no sibling is named directly.

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?

'Use it to judge a Workbench Transient/Static LS-DYNA run that is slow or stuck' gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing to the overlapping alternatives like scan_solver_messages or get_run_progress.

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