design_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computation methods (sealed/vented alignments), the included EBP advice, and the output form (simulateParams). It does not explicitly state read-only or error behavior, but for a compute tool the intent is clearly non-destructive and the described behavior is sufficient.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and every phrase contributes. It mentions defaults, alignment types, a key feature (EBP advice), and the downstream integration with simulate—all without redundancy. Excellent structure and no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the two design modes, defaults, and the output contract ('Returns simulateParams ready to pass to simulate'), which is important since no output schema exists. It leaves some input prerequisites implicit (e.g., need for driverName or inline ts), but the schema covers those fields with descriptions. For the tool's complexity, the description is largely complete.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context for Qtc default (0.707 Butterworth) and the QB3/Thiele alignment mapping, but does not significantly go beyond the schema. It is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 ('Compute an enclosure for a driver') and clearly distinguishes sealed vs. vented design methods. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but 'Returns simulateParams ready to pass to simulate' helps separate it from simulate. The core purpose is unmistakable.

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 implies a workflow: compute an enclosure to produce simulateParams for simulate. It explains how to use it (sealed via Qtc, vented via QB3/Thiele), but does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like simulate, evaluate_design, or search_drivers. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are given.

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