Render FEM Results

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it pulls the result surface from the worker, uses viridis with barycentric interpolation, overlays the deformed shape, draws a colorbar, and explains deformation_scale behavior including auto-scaling to ~8% of the model diagonal. This gives the agent a faithful model of what the tool does internally.

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 information-dense but well organized: a one-sentence purpose, a concise explanation of the rendering pipeline, parameter semantics, and the return payload. No sentences are wasted, and the most important distinctions are front-loaded.

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 description is largely complete for a read-only rendering tool: it explains the processing pipeline, key parameters, and return fields. The main gaps are the absence of any explanation for the required analysis parameter and the meaning of edges, which are important for correct invocation given the lack of schema descriptions or an output 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?

The description usefully explains field, view, and deformation_scale, including allowed values and examples. However, the required analysis parameter is never described, and edges, width, and height are left entirely to the schema names. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 specifies the tool's action: render a completed FEM result's surface colored by a per-vertex field. It distinguishes this from generic rendering tools like render_view or render_photoreal by focusing on FEM stress/displacement/thermal results with a deformed overlay and colorbar.

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 states that this is for completed FEM results and gives the supported fields, making it clear when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route to this tool for FEM result visualization.

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