fem_cantilever_demo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact return payload (nodes, tets, max_displacement_mm, max_vonmises_mpa, workdir) even though no output schema exists, and clearly describes the mutation side effect ('a fresh document is created; existing state... is NOT overwritten but a new document becomes active'). It omits runtime, solver prerequisites, and failure modes.

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 ordered purpose-first, then units, then return shape, then side effects. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (document creation) is stated explicitly rather than buried.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return contract, units, and state impact. The main remaining gap is that mesh_size and workdir are undefined, which slightly weakens callers tuning mesh resolution or output location.

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 supplies units ('dimensions in mm, force in N') for the geometric/force inputs, but never names the parameters and leaves mesh_size and workdir entirely unexplained, so a meaningful chunk of the schema remains undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('built-in cantilever FEM demo'), and the 'geometry → mesh → CalculiX' clause makes the scope concrete. It implicitly distinguishes itself from real analysis siblings (fem_run, fem_mesh) by being a self-contained demo, though it does not name an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'demo' suggests it is for exercising/testing the pipeline, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing versus fem_run/fem_modal. An agent must infer the intent.

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