analyze_residuals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (parsing and reporting) and lists specific outputs, which is informative. However, it does not mention possible side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files), error handling for missing/invalid logs, or limitations such as large file sizes. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action (parse) and lists the specific reports. No filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose in a compact form.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the essential information an agent needs to call the tool: pass a log file and receive an analysis. It does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON structure), but that might be inferred. It lacks info on edge cases (e.g., invalid file) but is mostly complete for a straightforward read/analysis tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'log_path'. It implies the parameter is a path to an OpenFOAM solver log file, but does not specify any format constraints (e.g., file extension, absolute vs relative path) or additional context like typical log file naming. It adds some meaning beyond the bare parameter name, but not deeply.

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 states a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('OpenFOAM solver log file'), and enumerates the exact outputs (residual drop, Courant number, bounded fields, convergence verdict). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like run_openfoam_command or check_case, since no other tool claims to analyze residuals.

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?

It provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that a solver log must exist) or when not to use it. The phrase 'parse an OpenFOAM solver log file' implies usage when a log file is available, but this is not stated as a recommendation or compared to sibling tools.

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