FEM Run

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical runtime behavior: it blocks the MCP channel up to 600 seconds, raises on non-zero ccx exit with *ERROR lines, raises if a fem_run_submit solve is still running, and specifies the returned fields. This is rich, actionable behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: blocking behavior, selection guidance, workdir default, error conditions, and return payload. The most important facts are front-loaded, and the structure flows logically from invocation to error handling to results.

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 complexity of a blocking solver call, the description covers a great deal: timeout, alternatives, defaults, error modes, and return fields. The main gap is that the required 'analysis' parameter is not explained at all, which prevents the definition from being fully self-sufficient despite strong coverage elsewhere.

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 the undocumented parameters. It explains the workdir default and semantics, but 'analysis' is left opaque — no indication of whether it is an ID, name, path, or how it should be obtained. This is a meaningful gap for a required parameter.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Run the CalculiX solver on an analysis.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling fem_run_submit by framing it as the synchronous, blocking variant, so an agent can tell them apart immediately without opening any schema.

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 explicitly gives selection criteria: use fem_run for small solves that finish in seconds, and fem_run_submit for anything taking a minute or more. It names the alternative directly and explains the trade-off (poll latency vs. channel availability), leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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