run_post_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the solved-job precondition and the behavior of an empty script_text (falls back to the tested S11/impedance exporter), but says nothing about mutations, permissions, or how results surface.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the default behavior second. No filler, though the second sentence is arguably the more load-bearing information for the caller.

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?

A job-execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs substantially more than two sentences. The caller has no idea what model_base selects or what artifacts are produced.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only the empty-script default for script_text; model_base (default 'mba_preliminary') and the required job_id are entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Run POSTFEKO Lua in a solved job.' The 'post' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling run_cad_script, though it never names that sibling directly. An agent can tell what it does, just not explicitly what it is not.

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 phrase 'in a solved job' implies the precondition that a solver run must already exist, and the second sentence hints at the default path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing away from run_cad_script or start_solver.

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