comsol_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It does disclose the return shape ('Session info including version and core count, or error message') and the effective defaults for each argument, which is useful. It says nothing about latency (starting a COMSOL session is slow), whether an existing session is replaced, or resource/permission requirements.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by compact Args/Returns blocks. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 simple 3-param entry-point tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers parameters and return shape adequately. It omits the operational context an agent would want — relationship to comsol_connect/comsol_disconnect and session lifecycle — leaving it only marginally complete.

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: each of the three parameters gets meaning plus an example ('6.0', ["ACDC", "CADImport"]) and the semantic default ('all available', 'latest installed'), which the schema's null defaults do not convey.

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 names a specific verb+resource: 'Start a local COMSOL client session.' That is clearly distinct from most modeling siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as comsol_connect or comsol_status, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied — the tool is an entry point that logically precedes modeling calls. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on choosing between comsol_start and the near-neighbor comsol_connect, which is the main selection risk here.

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