list_solvers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the output includes 'a one-line description of each and when to use it,' which fully describes the tool's behavior. As a read-only listing operation, no side effects need disclosure. The description is transparent within the tool's simplicity.

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, well-crafted sentence. It front-loads the core action ('List the OpenFOAM solver templates') and immediately adds the scope and output detail. No wasted words; every element serves a purpose.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what is listed, the scope, and what each entry includes. There is no output schema, but the description itself specifies the return content (name, one-line description, when to use). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. No parameter explanation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'OpenFOAM solver templates', and the specific scope 'this server can scaffold'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_mesh_presets by focusing on solvers rather than mesh presets.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs to know available solver templates and their use cases. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or conditions to avoid using it, but the purpose is clear enough in a set of qualitatively different siblings. No exclusions are stated, which fits a listing tool.

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