thermal_lumped

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the computation method, return fields, and a radiation screening behavior. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only and has no side effects, though this is strongly implied. Limiting conditions (e.g., validity of the lumped assumption) are absent.

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-loaded with purpose and formulas, then parameter sourcing, then concrete return fields. The formula and return list are lengthy but directly relevant, and every sentence adds technical substance. Minor verbosity from the full return enumeration.

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 tool's analytical complexity, 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it details the computation, outputs, and a screening behavior. Missing unit clarifications and validity bounds keep it from a 5.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains c_p (explicit value/quantity-string or read from material), h_conv (source from h_estimate), and duration_s (triggers return of temperature and fraction-of-steady). However, mass_g, power_w, area_mm2, emissivity, and t_ambient_c are not described; the formulas partially imply their roles but unit expectations remain unclear.

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 analytical operation: lumped first-order transient warm-up with no mesh. Differentiates from mesh-based siblings like thermal_transient_1d and thermal_transient_submit via '(no mesh)'. Gives the exact governing equations, so an agent knows precisely what computation occurs.

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?

Usage is implied: '(no mesh)' suggests a fast analytical model, and the description explicitly points to h_estimate for obtaining h_conv. However, it does not state when to choose this over thermal_transient_1d or thermal_transient_submit, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites.

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