solve_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains why a background thread is used (the local solve cannot run non-blocking), that the call returns at once with a solver working_dir, that get_solve_status reports 'Solving' meanwhile, and that other Mechanical tools return 'busy' while file and job tools stay responsive.

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 critical default/wait behavior is front-loaded in the first two sentences and the busy-state caveat is useful. The trailing 'Args: analysis_index, wait' line is pure filler since both parameters are already in the schema, and the prose is dense but largely earned.

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-value documentation is not needed, and the description still volunteers the working_dir return. Remaining gaps are minor: analysis_index meaning, and whether a solve overwrites prior results or what happens if a solve is already running.

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. It does explain `wait` thoroughly (default False, background thread + immediate return; True blocks), but `analysis_index` is only listed by name with no meaning, default 0 semantics, or how to discover valid indices.

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 ('Solve the LS-DYNA analysis') and scopes it to Mechanical's local solve, which implicitly separates it from the deck-submission sibling submit_lsdyna_job. It never names that sibling outright, so differentiation requires inference rather than being spelled out.

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?

Gives clear operational context: wait=False (default) returns immediately and the run should be watched with check_run_health / tail_solver_file / get_solve_status, while wait=True blocks. It names concrete follow-up tools but offers no explicit rule for choosing wait=True versus the default, nor when to prefer this over submit_lsdyna_job.

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