rf_solve

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the call is blocking, that full-fidelity is slower, that draft is coarser, and that results are cached by geometry content. This is good beyond the schema but does not cover return values or failure modes.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, perfomance expectation, draft toggle, and caching are each stated directly. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 description conveys the core workflow, timing, and the draft option, but leaves the 'params' argument unexplained and does not describe what the score result looks like. An agent could probably invoke it, but may not know what to pass in params or how to interpret the output.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for spec, draft, or params. The description clarifies that spec is the candidate being solved and that draft toggles fast mode, but params is never explained. With low schema coverage, the description compensates only partially.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Solve one candidate in HFSS and score it against the spec.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rf_synthesize or rf_optimize by focusing on solving/scoring a single candidate, not generating or optimizing.

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?

It gives clear context for using the tool: it is blocking, full-fidelity takes minutes, and draft=True provides a faster coarser answer. It also notes caching behavior. It does not explicitly compare with alternative siblings or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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