run_openfoam_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses prerequisites (OpenFOAM installed, environment sourced) and the return format (return code and tail of stdout/stderr). However, it does not disclose potential side effects of utilities like renumberMesh or decomposePar (which may modify files), and it does not mention the timeout parameter's effect. This leaves some behavioral 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?

The description is concise, using two sentences to convey the whitelist, the prerequisite, and the output. There is no redundancy, and the key constraints 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?

For a simple runner tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format and prerequisites, which is essential. However, it lacks any mention of the timeout parameter and does not specify the command parameter's allowed format beyond the whitelist, which are minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not name them directly, only implies case_dir with 'inside a case directory' and command with 'whitelisted utility,' while omitting timeout entirely. The provided meaning is minimal and insufficient given the lack of schema 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 states the action (run) and the resource (whitelisted OpenFOAM utilities) with a specific list of utilities, making it clear what the tool does and how it differs from other OpenFOAM-related tools. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 by listing the exact utilities and indicating they must run inside a case directory, which helps an agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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