cst_configure_frequency_domain_solver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Configure the frequency domain solver' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites previous settings, requires a running project, or affects other solvers). The description adds limited behavioral context beyond what the input schema already conveys.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action ('Configure the frequency domain solver') and immediately provide usage context. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool's purpose, best use cases, and supported sweep types, which is sufficient for a configuration tool with self-describing parameters. However, it lacks details about the tool's effect (e.g., whether it validates inputs, fails silently, or requires a project to be open). Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are clear. The tool description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond stating sweep types, which are already enumerated in the schema. For a tool with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose ('Configure the frequency domain solver') and distinguishes from sibling solvers by specifying typical use cases: 'Best for narrowband problems, resonant structures, and when field distributions at specific frequencies are needed.' This directly differentiates it from time domain solver and other solver types.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use the tool ('Best for narrowband problems, resonant structures...') and mentions supported sweep types, giving context for selection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the 'best for' phrasing implicitly excludes broadband or transient problems.

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