start_solver

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the solver runs as a background job and returns a job_id immediately. However, it omits side effects (e.g., file modifications), error conditions, and how to check progress, which are important for a mutation-like tool.

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 sentence with 12 words, no fluff, and front-loads the action and return behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description is thin on operational context. It doesn't mention that job_id can be used with sibling tools like get_job_status or stop_job, nor does it state prerequisites such as an existing case. Still, for a minimal start tool, it provides the essential 'what' and basic 'how'.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'case_name' is self-explanatory from its name, but 'solver' is ambiguous and not described in any way. The optional nature of 'solver' is not mentioned in the description, leaving the agent to guess its meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Start the OpenFOAM solver as a background job.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_mesh or list_cases. It also adds the asynchronous behavior (background job) and immediate job_id return, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage (when you want to run the solver) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existing case, mesh), or exclusions. No mention of how job_id connects to monitoring tools like get_job_status.

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