CHT Channel Submit

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: error behavior when ElmerSolver is absent, validation rejection threshold, return object shapes, and the instruction to poll job_result. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations alone cannot convey.

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 dense paragraphs with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and async behavior; subsequent sentences add prerequisite, validation, and return contract. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description covers return values, error handling, validation limits, and the job polling workflow. It leaves individual parameter roles mostly to inference, which is a partial gap for a 15-parameter tool.

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 explicitly explains flux_w_m2, t_in_c, and case_dir, and the physical context implies meaning for thermal and geometric parameters. However, 12 of 15 parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving meaningful gaps.

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: 'Conjugate heat transfer via Elmer', 'ONE solve spanning a plug-flow fluid channel AND a conducting solid wall coupled at their shared interface.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cht_graetz_submit by naming the coupled solid-wall physics.

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 context: asynchronous execution, requires ElmerSolver, accepts a prepared case_dir, and rejects Péclet >25. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the domain is scoped precisely enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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