List all boundary conditions and domain settings for a COMSOL physics interface to inspect model features.
List all features (boundary conditions, domain settings) in a physics interface.
Args: physics_name: Name of the physics interface model_name: Model name (default: current model)
Returns: List of physics features
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_name | No | ||
| physics_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if the physics_name is invalid, whether the tool can be called multiple times safely, or any side effects. The description is minimal and does not add transparency beyond the basic function.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are somewhat redundant given the schema, but do not harm. However, there is no wasted text; each part serves to clarify the tool's interface.
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, the description only says 'List of physics features' without detailing the structure or content of the list. For a domain-specific tool (COMSOL), this is insufficient. The tool has two parameters and likely returns structured data, but the description does not specify what a 'feature' is or the format of the list.
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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. While the Args section in the description mentions physics_name and model_name, it does not explain their purpose, expected format, or constraints. For example, it does not clarify that model_name defaults to the current model. The description adds negligible value over parameter 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 the action: 'List all features (boundary conditions, domain settings) in a physics interface.' It specifies the resource (features in a physics interface) and distinguishes from siblings like physics_list (which lists interfaces) and geometry_list_features (which lists geometry features).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need an existing physics interface) or contexts where this tool is preferred over others like physics_get_available. The description simply states what it does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.