openvsp.preflight

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that solving is not performed; it does not say whether the tool mutates the geometry file, executes set_commands or parameter_edits, or what happens when a check fails.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is easy to parse, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail that other dimensions penalize.

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 complex shared request schema and the absence of annotations, this description is incomplete: it omits the required geometry_file, the role of set_commands/parameter_edits, the meaning of 'geometry sets', and the operational context of a preflight check. An output schema exists, so return-value details are less critical, but invocation context is still under-specified.

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 contributes no parameter-level meaning. The single required 'request' parameter is an opaque wrapper around a large nested schema, and the description neither explains its fields nor connects 'geometry sets' to the geometry_file input.

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 names the operation ('check') and the resource ('loaded geometry sets'), and 'without solving' distinguishes it from solver tools like run_vspaero. However, it doesn't explain what a preflight check actually validates or differentiate it clearly from other non-solving siblings like inspect, preview, or query.

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?

'Without solving' implies the tool is meant for validation before or instead of running VSPAERO, but no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools are named. The intended usage context is only inferred from the phrasing and the sibling tool names.

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