add_output_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors, such as which parameters are required per format (e.g., 'vtk' needs output_path, 'point' needs position and output_file) and the default for variables. However, it does not describe return values, side effects on the file, or error conditions, so transparency is only partially addressed.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently packs format-specific requirements and defaults into a single, readable passage. The only minor issue is the slightly run-on phrasing, but it remains clear and unscattered.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the core formats and required inputs, and notes the default for variables. Yet it leaves 'model_part' unexplained and does not address how the output schema might influence expected return values, so the overall context falls short of fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of several parameters (format, output_path, output_file, position, variables) and ties them to specific formats. However, it omits any explanation for 'model_part' and does not explicitly state that 'parameters_file' is the target file path, leaving some parameters underspecified.

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 tool's function: 'Add an output process to a ProjectParameters.json.' It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('output process'), and enumerates supported formats with their distinct characteristics. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_boundary_condition' by focusing on output configuration.

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 about when to use the tool (to add an output process to a ProjectParameters.json) and explains format-specific requirements. However, it does not mention any alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving the user to infer distinctions from sibling names.

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