mesh_quality_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the parsing action and the output (verdict with metrics and advice), but it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only or how it handles malformed logs. Given it's a simple parser, this is adequate but not fully detailed.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key outputs. No wasted words, and the critical detail about working without OpenFOAM is included.

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 description covers the essential aspects: input (log path), processing (parse), and output (verdict with metrics and advice). It lacks specifics on return format or error handling, but for a one-parameter tool with no annotations, this is largely complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the parameter. It defines log_path as 'a checkMesh log file' which aligns with the parameter name, but adds no extra detail about format constraints or path handling. The meaning is self-evident from the context, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it parses a checkMesh log file into a quality verdict with specific metrics (non-orthogonality, skewness, aspect ratio, pass/fail) and advice. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_residuals and list_solvers, which address different concerns.

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 clear context: use this tool when you have a saved checkMesh log and want a quality report without running OpenFOAM. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or name alternatives, but the targeted nature of the tool makes its usage obvious.

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