Analyze solver performance from OPM flow simulation logs to identify time per stage, wasted steps, and worst steps, enabling convergence troubleshooting.
Solver performance from INFOSTEP/INFOITER: time by stage, wasted steps, worst steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| worst_n | No | ||
| case_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the data source and the reported dimensions, implying a read-only parsing behavior. However, it does not explain behavior when convergence data is missing, how 'wasted steps' or 'worst steps' are defined, or whether the report is derived directly from log output.
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 compact and front-loads the key idea: solver performance from INFOSTEP/INFOITER. It wastes no words and briefly enumerates the report contents. It leans toward under-specification, but as a concise summary it is effective.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description lacks important context such as when this tool is applicable, what prerequisites are needed, and how it relates to sibling tools. Given two parameters, no annotations, and a specialized report, the description is too minimal to fully support selection and invocation.
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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, but it does not clearly define case_path or worst_n. The phrase 'worst steps' loosely relates to worst_n, but the meaning, units, and effect of the parameter are left implicit. case_path is entirely unexplained.
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 identifies the specific resource ('solver performance from INFOSTEP/INFOITER') and the content ('time by stage, wasted steps, worst steps'), making it distinguishable from sibling flow/status/log tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'generate' or 'report', but the intent is clear enough.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of flow_status, flow_log_tail, or other sibling tools. It also does not mention prerequisites such as the case needing to have been run with Flow or the presence of INFOSTEP/INFOITER output, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.