EM Conduction Submit

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

With only weak annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so richly. It explains the async job contract, the missing-solver fallback shape, the cache_hit possibility, and the exact result fields to expect after polling.

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 mostly front-loaded, with the core operation stated first, followed by the async and error behavior. The cryptic 'P3 M6 frontier' phrase adds little signal and the return-field listing is long, but nearly 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the polled result fields and the submit response shape. It also covers the missing-solver behavior and the analytic validation expectation. However, `nx`/`ny` semantics are absent and the 'degradation dict' phrase is undefined, so it is not fully self-contained for a 7-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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 7 parameters. It explicitly ties `voltage_v` to the applied voltage and hints at `length_m`, `conductivity_s_m`, and `width_m` through the R = L/(σ·A) formula, but it never explains `nx`, `ny`, or `conductor`. This partial compensation is helpful but leaves real 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?

The description states a specific operation: DC current conduction via Elmer's StatCurrentSolver, building a rectangular strip and computing current, Joule heating, and resistance. It clearly distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like em_dc_resistance, em_field, and em_induction_submit by emphasizing the asynchronous submission and Elmer solver backend.

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 gives clear usage context: it is asynchronous, requires ElmerSolver, returns a non-raising error payload when absent, and directs the agent to poll job_result for the final values. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' bar for a 5.

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