inspire_export_optistruct

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states that overwriting is refused, that the solver is not run, and that export occurs through an ASCII-only staging folder before copying to the final path. It leaves out permissions/auth needs, timeout behavior, and what success returns, so it is not fully complete.

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 and key constraints are front-loaded, and most sentences carry operational value. The description is slightly dense with implementation details, such as the specific Inspire API method, but it remains compact and readable.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, overwrite refusal, non-solver behavior, and the ASCII path workaround. However, it does not explain run_name, timeout_s, or the return value, leaving gaps an agent may need filled elsewhere.

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. It adds useful meaning for element_size_m (metres), load_cases (default all), output_fem (ASCII staging workaround), and model_path context, but run_name and timeout_s are not explained at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource: open a model in headless Inspire and export an OptiStruct input deck (.fem). It also scopes the operation to parts and given load cases, so an agent can distinguish this from the sibling status/info/run_python tools.

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?

It clearly implies when to use this tool: exporting an OptiStruct .fem, with the default of all load cases, and explicitly says it does not run the solver. It does not name a sibling alternative or spell out when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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