physics_interactive_setup_flow

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

With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context by indicating it is interactive and prompts user for boundary selection and configuration. However, it omits details like whether it modifies the model, required permissions, or state changes after completion.

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 relatively concise with clear bulleted steps and Args/Returns sections. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Interactive setup wizard') and could be slightly more streamlined.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow and return value. But missing context such as whether it works on the current model, effect on existing boundaries, and guidance on when to use the interactive vs non-interactive sibling.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides additional meaning: physics_name is 'Name of Laminar Flow physics interface' and model_name is 'Model name (default: current model)'. This partly compensates but lacks detail on valid values or format.

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 it is an interactive setup wizard for Laminar Flow boundary conditions. It lists specific steps and distinguishes from sibling tools like physics_setup_flow_boundaries (non-interactive) and physics_interactive_setup_heat (different physics).

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 does not provide when-to-use vs alternatives, such as when to prefer physics_setup_flow_boundaries or physics_interactive_setup_heat. It implies interactive use but offers no explicit guidance on context or preconditions.

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