EM Induction Submit

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not open-world, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: async execution, dependency on ElmerSolver, the fallback return on missing solver, and the need to poll job_result. It explains the exact return shape, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 but efficient, packing physics, dependency, return format, and expected output into a single paragraph. It front-loads the core function and then details technical specifics. While long, it avoids redundancy and each sentence adds value.

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 complex simulation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: the physical model, the exact expected results, the asynchronous workflow, and the return structure. It does not explain all parameter meanings, but the missing details are minor given the defaults and the physics narrative.

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. It directly names 'depths' and 'frequency_hz' in the physics description and mentions μ_r and σ implicitly through the formula. However, parameters like nx, ny, conductor, conductivity_s_m are not explained beyond their names/defaults, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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 the tool's purpose: 'AC skin effect / induction via Elmer's harmonic 2-D magnetodynamics' and mentions it is asynchronous. It specifies the physics being modeled, and the return includes skin-depth verification, distinguishing it from sibling EM tools through its focus on induction and skin effect.

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 notes a prerequisite ('Requires ElmerSolver; when absent this returns {ok:false, reason, install}') but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like em_induction_heating_submit, em_skin_depth, or em_conduction_submit. Usage context is implied by the physics description, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are given.

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