evaluate_design

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

With no annotations to carry the safety/behavior burden, the description discloses that the tool orchestrates multiple simulation steps, returns an overall verdict plus threshold-based checks, and supports filters. It does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only or whether it mutates library data, but 'evaluation' plus the described behavior makes side-effect-free operation the reasonable inference.

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 tight sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose, a scannable checks list, and a return-value statement. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides the essential outcome semantics: overall verdict and detailed checks with thresholds. The main gap is operational prerequisites like supplying driver data via either ts or driverName, but the schema's inline descriptions already cover those.

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 77%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds meaningful semantic context by tying parameters to evaluation criteria: Qtc/Fb alignment, Xmax excursion, port velocity/chuffing with Mach ≤5%, F3 extension, SPL limiter, impedance peak, and box volume sanity, plus filter usage for subsonic protection.

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 action ('Full design evaluation'), a clear resource ('design'), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by saying it 'runs design_box + simulate + automated PASS/WARN/FAIL checklist in one call.' The enumerated checks make the tool's scope concrete and unambiguous.

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 clearly positions this as the all-in-one evaluation entry point versus the lower-level design_box and simulate tools, and notes filter support for subsonic protection. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for raw simulation, but the composite 'one call' framing provides clear contextual guidance.

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