cst_set_symmetry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool sets symmetry planes and lists options, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or impact on other project settings. The compatibility requirement is noted, but more detail on consequences would improve transparency.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 has only three parameters (all enumerated) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage requirement, and parameter options adequately. It does not detail the return value (likely void), but for a simple setting tool this is acceptable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of symmetry (reducing computation time) and the compatibility constraint, which goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions. This additional context justifies a higher score.

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 action ('set symmetry planes') and purpose ('reduce computation time'), and specifies the available options (electric, magnetic, none). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on symmetry settings, which is a unique function among the listed 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?

The description provides a prerequisite ('requires model geometry and excitation to be compatible') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., boundary conditions or other symmetry methods). No guidance on when not to use it is given.

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