viznoir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool runs via Docker and outputs VTK files, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as execution time, resource requirements, error handling, or whether it modifies input data. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by usage context, and ending with parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and output usage, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like performance or errors, which are not covered by the output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It provides examples for vars and only_type (e.g., '+vel,+press,+rhop', '+fluid') and clarifies the purpose of bi4_dir and output_dir. However, it lacks details on parameter formats or constraints.

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 specific action ('Run DualSPHysics IsoSurface to generate VTK surface mesh files') and resource ('bi4 particle data'), distinguishing it from siblings like animate, render, or contour which handle visualization rather than data conversion. It precisely defines the tool's function without being tautological.

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 by mentioning that output files can be used with animate() or render() via SourceDef, suggesting this tool is a preprocessing step for visualization. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like contour or slice, and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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