Async Demo Job

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

Beyond minimal annotations, the description discloses key behavior: execution runs off the MCP channel, returns immediately, produces a deterministic result, supports content-hash cache hits, and returns {job_id, status, cache_hit}. This gives the agent a strong behavioral model without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact sentences cover purpose, behavior, return format, polling, and caching. The key async behavior is front-loaded, and the aside about real solves is brief and useful.

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 simple demo tool with two optional parameters, the description covers launch semantics, return payload, polling routes, and caching. It does not describe possible status values or error conditions, but the core information needed to call and follow up is present.

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 duration_s as the compute time and mentions that identical (duration_s, value) pairs trigger a cache hit, but it does not define what 'value' represents or its units/constraints. Partial compensation only.

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 states a specific action: launch an async job that runs off the MCP channel and returns immediately. It clearly identifies the tool as a demo/reference for long-running solves and differentiates it from polling tools like job_status and job_result.

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 explains the intended use case: avoid blocking the worker during multi-minute solves, and explicitly says to poll with job_status / job_result afterward. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it versus real FEM/CFD submits, but the 'demo' framing and 'real solve plugs into the same facility' provide clear context.

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