Acoustic Radiation Submit

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining async out-of-process behavior, dependency conflicts, and degradation on missing venv. It does not fully disclose what happens to stale jobs, cache behavior, or potential resource consumption, but it covers the key operational facts.

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 description is dense and information-rich, but it is fairly long and packs many details into a single paragraph without clear structure. It front-loads the core purpose and async caveat, though the parenthetical details about meshio and venv could be more compact. Overall, every sentence adds value, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5 for structure.

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?

The description covers the three modes, the gating oracles, return shapes, degradation behavior, and the relationship to acoustic_fem_submit. However, there is no output schema and the description doesn't explicitly explain how the returned job_id should be polled or what timeout means in the async context. For a 15-parameter asynchronous tool with no output schema, it is close but not fully complete.

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 explains many parameters in context: a_m, u_amp, freq_hz, rho, c, h, ka_list, theta_deg, h_per_wl, model, scale_to_m, linear_deflection, problem. It still leaves timeout and some optional fields' exact ranges unexplained, but the major usage semantics are covered.

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 clearly states that this tool performs an exterior-acoustics boundary-element solve on Bempp, covering three problem modes (radiation, scattering, mesh_solve), and contrasts itself with analytic oracles and the acoustic_fem_submit sibling. It is specific about the resource and the operation.

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 description explains when to use this tool: for exterior-acoustics BEM problems, and explicitly says it is the twin of monopole_sphere and rigid_sphere_scattering analytic oracles, with gating criteria. It also warns when it should not be used or when it degrades to a failure dict due to missing Bempp venv, which effectively guides an agent away from relying on it in unsupported environments.

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