render_fem_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states it pulls the surface from the worker, its coloring/overlay/colorbar pipeline, and enumerates the return payload (png_base64, width, height, field, units, min, max, view, node_count, triangle_count). It omits any note on failure modes (e.g. what happens if the analysis is incomplete or the worker is down), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then gives a prose pipeline paragraph and a compact parameter legend. Every sentence adds value, though the prose paragraph is slightly verbose relative to a parameter-focused 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 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the tricky parameters and spells out the return shape, which is the right load-bearing content. The unexplained required 'analysis' argument is the one notable omission.

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, and it explains the three semantically complex parameters well: field enumerations, view preset vs custom '(azimuth,elevation)' with a concrete example, and deformation_scale's 'auto'/number/'0' semantics. The required 'analysis' parameter and width/height/edges are left unexplained, leaving some gaps.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Render a completed FEM result's surface, colored by a per-vertex field') and even frames its role ('the agent eyes for a stress / displacement / thermal solve'). It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like render_view or render_photoreal. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer for non-FEM rendering, so it lands just under a 5.

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 word 'completed' implies the precondition that an FEM solve must already have run, and the colormap/solve framing implies the context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as fem_results listed among siblings. Usage is only implied.

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