list_linear_solver_presets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a listing operation, enumerates available presets, and explains the output's applicability as drop-in settings blocks. This goes beyond a bare 'list' by revealing the structure and purpose of the returned data.

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 two sentences: one lists the presets, the second explains the drop-in usage. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the tool's purpose, enumerates the presets, and explains how the outputs are intended to be used in ProjectParameters. No critical context 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, so the description need not add parameter details. The schema is already complete (100% coverage). A baseline score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter info.

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 opens with 'List curated linear_solver_settings presets' – a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the exact preset names for serial and MPI/Trilinos, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_material_presets or list_templates.

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 states that each settings block is a drop-in for solver_settings.linear_solver_settings in a ProjectParameters, providing clear context for when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is evident.

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