solve_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention that solving is a potentially long-running operation, whether it modifies the project state, or what side effects occur. It only states a generic action without any 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 extremely short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. It front-loads the purpose but lacks any structuring or additional context. A single sentence that says almost nothing is not efficient because it fails to convey necessary information.

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?

Despite having an output schema empties and no annotations, the description is massively incomplete. For a tool that triggers a solve operation in a simulation context, an agent needs to know expected inputs, side effects, prerequisites, and what the output will contain. None of this is provided.

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% and the description adds no meaning for the single parameter 'analysis_name'. It doesn't explain what an analysis name is, where to find it, or any constraints. The schema only says it's a string; the tool description adds nothing.

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 is vague: 'Solve one uniquely named analysis' names the action and object but doesn't specify what 'solving' means, what the analysis is, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'evaluate_results' or 'get_solution_status'. It does not distinguish itself from these related tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., mesh must be generated), no context about what solving entails, and no reference to sibling tools that might be more appropriate for checking status or evaluating results.

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