results_convergence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the two input modes and the extracted metrics, but omits important behavioral details such as whether at least one parameter is required, what happens if both are provided, and error conditions. For a read-only tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the verb, resource, input alternatives, and output details. It is front-loaded with 'Extract' and contains no filler, earning a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema), the description covers the main functionality and output components well. The only notable gap is the lack of clarification about parameter requirements or precedence, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that job_id refers to a job identifier and log_file to a log file path, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare property names. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether one is required and how the two parameters interact, only partially compensating.

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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' with a clear resource 'convergence information from a simulation log' and lists specific outputs (per-step nonlinear iteration counts, residual ratios, convergence status). This distinguishes it well from sibling results_* tools like results_summary or results_probe.

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 for when to use the tool: when convergence information from a simulation log is needed. It mentions the two invocation modes (job_id or log_file), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the specificity makes the use case evident.

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