Thermal Radiation Submit

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

The description reveals significant behavior beyond the annotations: it is asynchronous, requires ElmerSolver and ViewFactors, returns {ok:false, reason, install} rather than raising when dependencies are absent, and returns a job_id for polling. It does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation, and while it does not detail file-system side effects, the annotation already signals destructive potential.

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 long but well-structured: a lead sentence, a dependency note, and two bullet modes followed by the return contract. Each section contributes necessary information for a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema. It is dense but not padded; the only minor inefficiency is some repetition in the output list.

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 high-complexity asynchronous solver with 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, both invocation modes, the job polling path, the expected result fields, and even the physics oracle used for verification. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly in either mode.

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 carries the burden, and it largely succeeds: t1_c/t2_c are defined as °C, emissivity_1/emissivity_2 are called out with defaults, and width_m, gap_m, plate_thickness_m, n_x, and k_plate are grouped as mesh/geometry knobs. The only gap is that the `sif` parameter is not explicitly explained, though the prepared-case mode implies its role.

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 states a specific action ('Diffuse-gray radiation FEM via Elmer, asynchronous') and explicitly names the sibling it relates to: 'the radiation sibling of thermal_transient_submit.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from other thermal/simulation tools. The verb, resource, and domain are all clear.

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 gives two explicit usage modes—building the two-plate enclosure case or running a prepared case_dir—and states the required external binaries and the graceful failure path if they are missing. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over the transient sibling beyond calling it the 'radiation sibling,' so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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