Extract temperature field summary from a completed thermal run, returning min, max, mean temperatures and top hot nodes.
Extract temperature field summary from a completed thermal run. Returns {temperatures_c: {min, max, mean}, top_n_hot_nodes: [...]}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_n | No | ||
| analysis | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (temperature min/max/mean and hottest nodes) in place of an output schema, but says nothing about permissions, read-vs-write semantics, units beyond the _c suffix, or error behavior for an incomplete run.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and the return contract are both front-loaded and immediately 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?
For a low-complexity two-parameter results tool with no output schema, the inline description of the returned object usefully fills the output-schema gap. It stops short of covering the required analysis argument or run-completion prerequisites, but it is close to sufficient.
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. The return field "top_n_hot_nodes" loosely implies the top_n parameter controls how many hot nodes are listed, but neither top_n's count semantics nor the required "analysis" identifier format is explained anywhere.
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 ("Extract") and resource ("temperature field summary from a completed thermal run"), which clearly separates it from general result tools like fem_results and modal tools like fem_modal_results. It does not, however, explicitly name or differentiate itself from those 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?
The phrase "from a completed thermal run" implies a prerequisite (the run must be finished first), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer fem_results or fem_result_probe instead, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.