em_conduction_submit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important behavior: the call is asynchronous, it returns {ok:false, reason, install} rather than raising when ElmerSolver is absent, and the result must be retrieved via job_result. The expected return keys (job_id, status, cache_hit) and the degradation-dict fallback are also spelled out, which is above-average transparency for a no-annotation tool.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then layers on prerequisites, physics, and return shape without much redundancy. It is dense with notation (R = L/(σ·A), resistance_ratio, backticked names) but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting, and it covers both the async-submit return ({job_id, status, cache_hit}) and the polled result fields (current_a, joule_w, effective_resistance_ohm, resistance_ratio, etc.). The main remaining gap is parameter-level detail for the geometry/grid arguments.

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, and it partially does: voltage_v is defined as the voltage across the strip ends, and conductivity/length/width are implicit in the R = L/(σ·A) formula framing. However, nx, ny, and conductor are never explained, leaving several of the seven parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 — DC current conduction via Elmer's StatCurrentSolver — and describes exactly what is simulated (a rectangular strip with voltage_v across its ends) and what is measured (electrode current, Joule heating, effective resistance). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling em_dc_resistance, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick.

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 implies the workflow (submit, then poll job_result) and notes a prerequisite (ElmerSolver must be present), which gives context for use. But it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus em_dc_resistance or em_field, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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