auto_postprocess

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

With no annotations, the description must fully cover behavior. It discloses that the tool analyzes files, detects domains, produces 3-5 visualizations, and iteratively refines parameters. However, it does not clarify whether it modifies files, what the output format is, or any side effects like resource usage. There is room for more detail on the refinement process.

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 concise sentences plus a pipeline list. It is front-loaded with the key actions and avoids unnecessary words. 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, process, and parameters adequately. It explains the autonomous pipeline, domain detection, and iterative refinement, which is sufficient 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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, and the tool description adds workflow context (e.g., '3-5 visualizations' implies the output count, 'inspect → visualize → evaluate → refine' explains the purpose of iterations). This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 that the tool performs autonomous post-processing with a pipeline of inspect, visualize, evaluate, and refine. It specifies that it detects simulation domains (CFD/FEA/SPH) and produces 3-5 visualizations automatically. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'render' or 'animate' by emphasizing autonomy and iteration.

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 autonomous exploration and refinement, especially with sampling-capable clients. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for specific tasks. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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