run_fem_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it reveals auto-creation of SolverCcxTools, synchronous blocking on the GUI thread, failure return behavior, and runtime side effects like writing to a working directory. This is exemplary transparency.

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 well-structured and information-dense, with a clear main action, organized prerequisites, behavioral notes, and parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words—each sentence contributes meaning.

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 complexity of a FEM solver tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete: it specifies prerequisites, return values (max von Mises stress, displacements, node count, working directory), failure modes, and blocking behavior. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section. It provides semantic details for timeout, include_screenshot, and view_name, and contextualizes doc_name/analysis_name through the prerequisites list.

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: 'Run the CalculiX solver on an existing Fem::FemAnalysis container and return summary results.' This specifies a verb (run), resource (CalculiX solver on Fem::FemAnalysis container), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_object or execute_code.

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 detailed prerequisites and usage context, including document requirements and synchronous blocking behavior with guidance to not fan out parallel requests. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but clear context is given for when to use the tool.

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