export_for_paraview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does tell the agent that the export uses foamToVTK and produces an optional zip file on disk, which is useful context. However, it omits side effects like overwriting existing files, required permissions, or whether the case is modified, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: it leads with the verb and resource, then provides the method and optional zip. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is easily scannable.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical contextual information: it does not say that the case must already exist or that the solver must have run, nor does it mention whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous. For an agent to invoke this correctly, it would need to infer prerequisites from sibling tool names. This is a clear gap.

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%, but the description still maps to the two parameters: 'case' implies case_name is the case to export, and 'optional zip package' indirectly indicates the make_zip boolean. However, it does not explicitly explain how the parameters are set or any constraints/format for case_name, so the added value is moderate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: exporting a case for ParaView via foamToVTK. It uses a specific verb (export), a specific resource (case), and even identifies the underlying method and optional zip output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_case or start_solver.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the case must exist and have been solved), nor does it note whether this should follow start_solver or be used instead of summarize_results. Contextual cues must be inferred from the name and sibling list.

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