first_cell_height

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the calculation is an estimate based on a correlation and that defaults are for air at sea level, which is useful context. However, it does not mention the output format or units, nor any limitations of the correlation, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose and method, the second gives usage context and default information. No irrelevant words, and the essential facts are front-loaded.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should be comprehensive. It lacks details on the specific formula, units, assumptions (e.g., flat plate behavior), and what the output represents. An agent might not know how to choose length or interpret the result.

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. It provides only a hint about defaults (air at sea level) but does not explain the role of velocity, length, or the fluid properties. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but an agent cannot determine what length refers to (e.g., characteristic length) or how the inputs relate.

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 tool estimates the first-cell height to achieve a target y+ on a turbulent boundary layer using a flat-plate correlation. It explicitly says 'Use before meshing to set the near-wall cell size,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like y_plus_from_height.

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 provides a clear usage context: before meshing to set near-wall cell size. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it. Missing explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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