inlet_turbulence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the quantities produced (k, epsilon, omega, nut) and the purpose context. However, it leaves ambiguous whether the tool writes to the case files or merely returns values, and it doesn't disclose the return/output format or any side effects. Partial disclosure, adequate but with gaps.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. The primary compute function and its inputs are front-loaded, and the usage context follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete on purpose and use-case but falls short on parameter rigor: it omits units for velocity and kinematic_viscosity and does not disclose the return format or the optional nature of kinematic_viscosity (which has a default in the schema). Adequate for a niche physics tool but with clear documentation gaps.

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 undocumented parameters. It adds real meaning to two of four parameters: turbulence_intensity is a fraction (e.g., 0.05) and length_scale is in meters. However, it does not specify units for velocity or kinematic_viscosity, nor explain kinematic_viscosity's role in the computation. Only partial compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb (compute) tied to specific resources (inlet k, epsilon, omega, nut) and states the exact derivation inputs (turbulence intensity as a fraction, turbulent length scale in meters). It clearly differentiates from all sibling tools, none of which compute turbulence inlet values, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 second sentence gives concrete context for when to use the tool: 'Use to fill the 0/ directory inlet/internalField values for a RANS case.' This anchors the tool to the RANS setup workflow. It doesn't name explicit alternatives to exclude, but no sibling offers the same function, so the absence of exclusions is acceptable.

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