physics_add_laminar_flow

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

The description only states that it adds physics and returns info. It does not disclose behavioral traits like modification of the existing model, prerequisites (e.g., open model), or side effects. With no annotations, the burden falls on the description, which it insufficiently addresses.

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 very short and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. It contains no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the parameter descriptions into a fluent sentence.

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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., need an active model) and does not mention the return structure beyond 'Created physics info'. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description provides brief explanations for both parameters (domain_selection and model_name) with defaults. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it could be more detailed (e.g., expected format of selection names).

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 clearly states that the tool adds Laminar Flow physics for fluid dynamics, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like physics_add_electrostatics or the generic physics_add, missing an opportunity to clarify when this specific physics is appropriate.

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. Given many sibling physics_add_* tools and a generic physics_add, the description should include context such as 'use for incompressible fluid flow' or link to related physics.

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