solve_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that progress is visible in the GUI, that solver messages are returned, and that wait=False makes the call asynchronous requiring polling. It says nothing about failure behavior, blocking, or resource/prerequisite constraints, so meaningful gaps remain for a long-running solver invocation.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the critical async caveat folded onto the parameter. The 'Args:' line is cramped but earns its space; only minor tidying is possible without losing content.

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 no explanation, and the async/timeout mechanics are covered. However, for a mutation-style solve operation with no annotations, the description omits prerequisites, likely failure modes, and whether the solve is cancelable or blocking — gaps an agent would want before invoking it.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains wait well (False submits and returns at once), adding real meaning beyond the bare boolean, and names analysis_index but never clarifies what the index refers to or how it maps to project analyses.

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 ('Solve') and resource ('the analysis'), which is enough to distinguish it from the numerous setup tools (add_force, generate_mesh, etc.) in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling, but the scope is unambiguous for an FEA workflow.

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?

It gives a real when-to-use rule for the wait parameter: use wait=False for solves longer than the client call timeout, and then poll get_solve_status. This names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, though it offers no guidance on prerequisites (mesh/BC readiness) or when not to solve.

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