auto_postprocess

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

With no annotations, the description explains the iterative process, domain detection, and automatic visualization generation. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the workflow is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key action steps, no redundant phrasing. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

The description covers core functionality and iterative refinement but could clarify output expectations (e.g., what form the visualizations take). Still, it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the overall process (e.g., '3-5 visualizations', 'iteratively') which informs parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as autonomous post-processing with a specific workflow: inspect, visualize, evaluate, refine. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., render, contour) that perform individual tasks.

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 for automated post-processing tasks, including detection of simulation domain and automatic visualization. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context of siblings provides differentiation.

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