compare_to_analytical

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses mode-specific behavior: mock mode uses an ideal parabolic profile with a 'small noise-free match', and real mode uses an MVP approach with bulk U and analytical profile as reference, with future extension possible. This is useful behavioral context, though it omits side-effect or permission details.

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 two short paragraphs with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds necessary mode-specific detail without wasting words.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and mode-dependent behavior. However, the missing parameter documentation and lack of explicit alternative guidance create clear gaps. It is an adequate but not fully self-sufficient description.

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 input schema has only one parameter, case_name, with 0% schema description coverage. The description never explains what case_name refers to, its expected format, or valid values, leaving the agent to infer solely from the parameter name. This is a clear gap, though minimized by having only one obvious parameter.

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 opening sentence 'Compare numerical pipe flow to Hagen–Poisseuille analytical solution' is a specific verb+resource+reference statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like summarize_results or export_for_paraview, which have different purposes.

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 mentions two contexts, 'In mock mode' and 'With real OpenFOAM results', providing implied guidance on when the tool behaves differently. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this tool over siblings, so usage guidance remains only implicit.

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