FEM Cantilever Demo

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

Annotations mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds concrete context by explaining that a fresh document is created, existing session state is not overwritten, and the new document becomes active. This usefully qualifies what destructive behavior actually occurs rather than contradicting the annotation.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by units, return shape, and side effects, so 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?

For a demo tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, units, return values, and session side effects. The only notable gaps are undocumented mesh_size/workdir semantics and no explicit statement about synchronous execution, but these are minor for a demo.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the parameter-semantics burden. It provides crucial units ('Dimensions in mm, force in N') that clarify width/height/length/force, but it does not explain mesh_size behavior or the role of workdir beyond including it in the return value.

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 verb ('Run') and resource ('built-in cantilever FEM demo'), then clarifies the full pipeline with 'geometry → mesh → CalculiX'. This makes it easy to distinguish from the many discrete FEM sibling tools like fem_mesh or fem_run.

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 phrase 'built-in ... demo' implies this tool is for running a canned example rather than a custom FEM analysis, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives. There is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, only an implied use case.

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