build_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (build, export deck, return path/stats/errors) and explicitly says it does not run the simulation. However, it omits side effects such as file creation location, overwrite behavior, prerequisites (e.g., existence of CAD files), or any environmental requirements. It also doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible or if it validates the spec before building.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and the critical 'WITHOUT running it' distinction. The subsequent details and an Args section are structured and to the point. Each sentence contributes meaning; there is no filler. It's slightly verbose but appropriately so for a tool with two parameters.

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?

The tool is complex (imports CAD, meshes, applies BCs/loads) and has an output schema, but the description doesn't fully cover prerequisites, failure modes, or detailed spec structure beyond pointing to a template. It also doesn't mention whether validation is expected prior to calling. The pointer to get_spec_template helps, but for a build operation with no annotations, more explicit guidance on input requirements and side effects would be needed for full completeness.

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 add value. It explains spec_json as a JSON string and points to get_spec_template for format, and specifies job_name is optional with a default to the spec's model_name. This goes beyond the bare schema and gives an agent enough to construct correct arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') with a clear resource (simulation spec) and output (.inp deck), and explicitly states 'WITHOUT running it' to distinguish from run_simulation and build_and_simulate. It also enumerates the sub-steps (CAD import, meshing, materials/BCs/loads) and return values, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context by stating it builds without running, which suggests using this when only a mesh/deck is needed. It also references get_spec_template for spec creation, providing a pointer to a companion tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like build_and_simulate or validate_simulation_spec, nor state when NOT to use it. Still, the 'WITHOUT running it' is a clear differentiator.

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