fem_mesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return shape ('Returns {handle, name, nodes, tets}') and that the mesh is attached to the analysis, plus default behavior for char_length and element_order. It does not mention permissions, side effects on existing analysis data, or any error/rate-limit behavior, so it is only moderately transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then addresses key parameters in a logical order. The lengthy parenthetical justifying 2nd-order elements is detailed but relevant, though it adds some unnecessary length for a tool description.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description helpfully states the return shape. With no annotations, it should ideally cover more behavioral context, and it omits the 'name' parameter entirely. It is adequate for an agent to call the tool but not fully complete for the richness of the schema.

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 five parameters. It thoroughly describes char_length (max element length in mm, 0 = Gmsh picks) and element_order ('1st' or '2nd', default lets Gmsh choose), and body/analysis are semantically implied by the opening sentence. However, the 'name' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of five parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Gmsh mesh of body, attached to analysis'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like fem_mesh_refinement or fem_new_analysis, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance for choosing element_order ('Use 2nd for bending/modal accuracy'), which implies when the tool is useful for modal or bending analysis. But it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fem_mesh_refinement) or any prerequisites, leaving tool-level usage implied rather than explicit.

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