ms_gui_castep_current

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as blocking behavior, state changes, permissions required, or side effects of queuing. While it mentions 'queue a calculation,' it does not describe what happens after queuing, nor does it discuss error conditions or success indicators.

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 brief with two sentences, no redundancy. However, the list of presets could be trimmed if the schema enum for calculationType is sufficiently descriptive. The structure is acceptable but could be improved with bullet points or clearer separation of presets from the main action.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description lacks essential context. It does not explain the meaning of 'current GUI document,' the output format, error handling, or any dependencies. The agent is left without enough information to use the tool confidently.

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?

With only 11% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond listing the calculation presets that correspond to the calculationType parameter. It does not explain critical parameters like cores, quality, exportFile, or extraSettings, leaving the agent underinformed about their purpose and constraints.

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 tool queues a CASTEP calculation on the current GUI document and lists supported presets. It specifies the action ('Queue') and resource ('CASTEP calculation'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ms_gui_prepare_remote_castep_batch or ms_castep, leaving room for ambiguity about local vs. remote execution.

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 such as ms_gui_prepare_remote_castep_batch for remote submissions or ms_castep for general CASTEP tasks. The description lacks any usage context or prerequisites, making it harder for an agent to decide correctly.

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