run_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that execution is backgrounded, that a job_id is returned, where outputs land, that restart/cancel are unsupported, and how solver flags can be passed via extra_args.

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 core purpose, then gives concise behavioral context and a structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the parameter list is easy to scan.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the important workflow context: prerequisites, output locations, defaults, and limitations. An agent can call this tool correctly with the information provided.

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 compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained with its meaning, defaults, and an example for extra_args. This adds substantial value beyond the raw JSON schema.

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: 'Start the CPU solver in the BACKGROUND and return a job_id.' It clearly distinguishes run_case from siblings like gencase (preprocessing) and job_status (tracking progress).

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 explicitly states the prerequisite of running gencase first and points to job_status for progress tracking. It also notes that restart/cancel are not implemented, giving useful exclusions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this when X', but the context is clear.

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