thermal_transient_1d

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses the underlying model, its validity range, the limiting collapse to the lumped exponential, and a cross-check flag. It stops short of stating error behavior outside the valid Fourier range beyond implying the one_term_valid flag, leaving a small gap.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: identity of the method, then validity, then sibling relationships, then input guidance, then output keys. Every sentence carries physics or sourcing information; the only cost is density that slightly reduces scannability.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned keys (biot, fourier, t_center_c, t_surface_c, etc.) and covering material/geometry interpretation. It is nearly complete, with only peripheral parameter units/roles left implicit.

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 largely does: it maps alpha_m2_s/k+rho+cp/material to their roles, defines α = k/(ρ·cₚ), ties Bi = h·L/k and Fo = α·t/L² to the required inputs, and points h_conv to its source. Minor inputs like t_ambient_c, t_initial_c, and duration_s are left to inference, so it is not fully compensatory.

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 method and resource: 'Analytic 1-D plane-wall transient conduction (one-term Heisler series)'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings: the Elmer 'thermal_transient solve' it is gated against, and the 'lumped screen' it improves upon via the distributed spatial-gradient answer. An agent can pick it apart from thermal_lumped and thermal_transient_submit without opening any schema.

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?

States an explicit validity domain ('valid for Fourier ≳ 0.2') and gives concrete input-sourcing rules: pass alpha_m2_s, or k+rho+cp, or a material, and 'get h_conv from the h_estimate correlation screen rather than guessing.' It also frames when the lumped alternative applies (Bi→0). This is close to full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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