physics_interactive_setup_heat

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is 'interactive' and 'provides setup instructions,' suggesting it does not modify the model directly, but it does not confirm whether it has side effects, requires user interaction during execution, or any constraints. The lack of transparency about potential state changes or prerequisites is a gap.

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 short and includes a clear intro, numbered steps, and an args section. However, the args section merely restates the schema, wasting space without adding value. It is not overly verbose, but could be more efficient by omitting redundant parameter listings.

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 no output schema and only 2 parameters, the description should provide a complete picture of what the tool returns and how it behaves. It mentions returning 'Boundary information and setup instructions' but gives no specifics on the structure or content of the output. The steps are vague (e.g., 'Shows typical boundary condition types' – does it show a list or a form?). Missing details on interaction flow reduce completeness.

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%: the description lists the parameter names (physics_name, model_name) with their defaults, but does not explain their purpose, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already indicates. For example, what values are valid for 'physics_name'? This adds no semantic value, and for a low-coverage situation, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 identifies the tool as an 'Interactive setup wizard for Heat Transfer boundary conditions.' It specifies the domain (Heat Transfer) and the action (setup wizard), distinguishing it from general physics tools or other interactive setups like physics_interactive_setup_flow. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool physics_setup_heat_boundaries, which may overlap in functionality.

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 lists steps that the tool performs (list boundaries, show types, provide instructions) but does not include any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as physics_setup_heat_boundaries. No 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' information is provided, leaving the agent without decision support.

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