openvsp.sweep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the sweep is sequential and limited to 1–25 conditions, but it does not mention side effects, blocking behavior, execution privileges, error semantics, or how results are returned. For a tool that likely runs server-side computations, this is a significant 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?

The text is very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It reads like a caption or title rather than a functional description secret, and it offers no structured details about inputs, execution, or expected behavior.

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 nested request schema and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid call or anticipate execution behavior. The output schema may cover return values, but the core semantics of running the sweep are left largely unexplained.

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 does not explain the request object or its key fields such as geometry_file, conditions, set_commands, or timeout_seconds. It only restates the 1–25 condition range already encoded in the schema via minItems and maxItems, plus the sequential execution ordering.

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 communicates that this is a 1–25 condition sequential sweep, which adds some scope. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement—it never explicitly says the tool executes or runs a sweep, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like run_vspaero or batch_submit.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_vspaero or batch_submit. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and minimal description.

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