openems_create_coupled_lines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses calculation outputs (even/odd, differential/common-mode, coupling) which is useful behavioral context. But it does not mention operational details such as whether the tool writes to disk, requires OpenEMS installation, or returns a model vs a result set. There is no contradiction with annotations (since none exist), but the behavioral disclosure is incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence says what it does, the second describes calculations and use case. Every word earns its place.

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 is reasonably complete for a design tool: it explains the geometry type, the computed quantities, and the application (NEXT/FEXT). There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming key outputs. It stops short of specifying whether the tool returns values directly or generates a script, which would add further completeness, but for tool selection it suffices.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds global context about outputs (e.g., 'calculates coupling coefficient') but does not provide per-parameter semantic enhancements beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 opens with 'Design edge-coupled microstrip lines,' a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_microstrip (single line) and antenna creation tools. It also lists concrete calculation outputs (even/odd mode impedances, differential/common-mode impedances, coupling coefficient) that leave no ambiguity about its function.

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?

Mentions '4-port geometry for NEXT/FEXT analysis,' providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate (crosstalk analysis). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling tool list implies alternatives like single-line microstrip design.

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