mdpa_extract_boundary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: outward orientation for positively oriented elements, the critical NOTE that a positive POSITIVE_FACE_PRESSURE acts along the outward normal (tension) requiring a negative value for compression, and that sub_model_part is created if needed. It omits overwrite semantics and any permission/error behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter guidance and then the important sign-convention NOTE. It is a dense single paragraph, which is justified by the complexity, though a small amount of parenthetical detail (node-count enumerations) could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the substantive parameters and behavioral quirks for an 8-param, annotation-free tool. The unaddressed path/output/overwrite/property_id are relatively conventional, leaving only minor gaps.

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% for 8 params, so the description must compensate. It explains condition_name thoroughly (Kratos type or a map keyed by face node count, with detailed node-count guidance for quadratic cells), plus element_part and selector. It leaves path, output, overwrite, and property_id undocumented, so it compensates for about half the parameters.

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 very specific verb+resource: creating conditions on free (unshared) faces and placing them in sub_model_part. The parenthetical 'the way to get load/flux surfaces on a mesh that has none' clarifies intent, and it is readily distinguishable from siblings like mdpa_extract and mdpa_create_sub_model_part.

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?

Explains when this is the right tool ('a mesh that has none' load/flux surfaces) and describes narrowing behaviors via element_part and selector (with a concrete x=0 plane example). It does not explicitly name a competing sibling and defer to it, but the usage context is clear.

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