fem_new_analysisCreate a finite element analysis container to set up simulations in FreeCAD, returning its handle and name.
Create a Fem::FemAnalysis container. Returns {handle, name}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Analysis |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate non-read-only/non-destructive behavior, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the core side effect (creating a container) and the return contract ({handle, name}), but it omits prerequisites such as an active document and does not mention failure behavior or persistence.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the core action and return value are front-loaded. The description is appropriately sized for a simple factory tool.
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 one-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential operation and return shape. However, it lacks contextual prerequisites (e.g., active document/workbench) and any indication of how the returned handle/name is meant to be used with other FEM tools.
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 needed to explain the optional 'name' parameter, but it is entirely absent. The schema itself only supplies a title and default, so the parameter is minimally inferable but not elaborated.
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 ('Create') and identifies the exact resource being made ('Fem::FemAnalysis container'), and states the return payload. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling FEM tools, but the creation intent is unambiguous relative to run/mesh/material siblings.
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?
No guidance is given for when to call this tool versus sibling FEM tools such as fem_set_material, fem_add_constraint, or fem_run. The need to create an analysis before other FEM operations is only implicit, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.