FEM Modal

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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds useful behavioral detail: it only configures solver settings, does not run the analysis, and requires subsequent calls. This goes 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then concrete parameter effects, then required follow-up calls. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is highly scannable.

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?

The workflow is well-stated, but the tool has four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema. The required `analysis` parameter is left ambiguous, and there is no guidance on constraints between n_modes and the frequency bounds. The definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it reliably.

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?

The description usefully explains f_low/f_high and n_modes, but the required `analysis` parameter is never semantically defined. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but an agent still cannot know what to pass for `analysis` or how it relates to the stated solver setting. This is a major gap.

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 identifies the tool as configuring modal/frequency extraction, states the specific solver settings it changes, and distinguishes itself from the solve and result-reading siblings in the workflow. It is far from tautological and names the resource it acts on.

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 explicit workflow context: this tool configures, fem_run solves, and fem_modal_results reads results. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like fem_buckling or thermal analyses, but the modal-specific naming and behavior make the intended use clear enough.

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