Compares current simulation results with analytic or literature references or reports mesh convergence studies to verify case validity and flag missing convergence checks.
Compare the latest result with the case's reference (analytic or literature), or report the mesh convergence study. Without either, the third gate is unchecked: offer check_convergence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | ||
| language | No | ja |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool performs a comparison against a stored reference or reports a convergence study, but says nothing about what a verdict looks like or how failure is surfaced, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, with no padding. But the second sentence's 'third gate' concept is never defined, so the compactness costs comprehension rather than earning it.
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 read-only verification step, the essentials are present: what is compared and the fallback when nothing is available. Missing are the two parameters' meaning and any indication of the returned verdict, which matters since no output schema exists.
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 compensates for none of it: neither case_id nor the language enum (default 'ja') is mentioned. The agent gets no statement about whether language controls the comparison text, the report, or error messages.
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 states two concrete activities (compare the latest result against an analytic/literature reference; report a mesh convergence study), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never plainly says 'verify' and leans on unexplained domain jargon ('the third gate'), so an agent must infer what verification actually produces.
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?
It gives a usable call context and explicitly routes to a sibling: when neither a reference nor a convergence study exists, the agent is told to 'offer check_convergence'. That is real when/when-not guidance naming the alternative, though the conditions for choosing between the two internal modes are not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed