openvsp.run_vspaero

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the source geometry is preserved and that actual solver inputs/results are verified, which is useful. However, it does not mention that this launches an external solver, may be compute/time intensive, or what side effects occur beyond source preservation.

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 appropriately short, front-loaded, and free of padding. The final sentence fragments ('Source preserved.' and 'fixed_wake selects...') are terse but acceptable; slight ambiguity in 'verify actual solver inputs and results' prevents a perfect score.

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 tool with a complex nested request schema and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It omits guidance on how set_commands/parameter_edits interact, when run_vspaero should be set false, compute/time expectations, and how this tool relates to read_results or preflight. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the remaining operational gaps are material.

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 effectively 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains one parameter: fixed_wake. The rest of the large nested request surface is left to parameter names and defaults. The 'steady subsonic condition' phrase weakly hints at Mach < 1, but most parameters get no added semantic context.

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 a specific action ('Solve'), a precise scope ('one steady subsonic condition'), and a distinguishing trait from sibling tools such as sweep or batch_submit. Even the tool name is less clear than this description, which specifies exactly what run_vspaero is for.

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 implies single-condition use but does not explicitly say when to choose this over openvsp.sweep, openvsp.batch_submit, or openvsp.preflight. It gives no exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would route an agent to a more appropriate sibling.

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