check_case

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely meets it: it discloses the return shape (errors, warnings, pass flag) and explicitly notes it does not require OpenFOAM installed, signaling this is a non-mutating logical check rather than a code-executing operation. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify the case,' but 'logically validate' and the no-OpenFOAM note make the harmless read-only nature clear.

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, zero waste, and correctly front-loaded with the verb and resource. The colon-enumerated validation checks are compact and specific, and the return behavior plus the no-OpenFOAM caveat each earn their place. Nothing extraneous.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it validates, what it returns (errors/warnings/pass flag), and the no-OpenFOAM prerequisite. The only minor gap is not defining the threshold between 'error' and 'warning,' but this is unlikely to block correct invocation for an OpenFOAM-literate agent.

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, and it only partially does. The single parameter case_dir is self-evident from the schema, and the description confirms it operates on 'a case directory.' For a trivial single string parameter this is adequate, but the description adds no specifics about path format, absolute vs relative paths, or required structure beyond the bare directory concept.

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 names a specific verb ('Logically validate') and resource ('a case directory'), then enumerates exactly what is checked: required system files, solver read, turbulence field consistency, and 0/ boundary patches matching the mesh. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_openfoam_command, mesh_quality_report, and scaffold_case — none of which perform whole-case logical validation.

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 purpose strongly implies the use case — validate a case before running a solver — and the return of a pass flag is obvious value. However, the description never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., mesh_quality_report for mesh concerns, read_dict for inspecting settings), nor does it state when not to use it. Guidance is only implied, not stated.

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