openems_create_microstrip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by naming the Hammerstad formula and stating that it generates 2-port geometry for S-parameter extraction. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors like whether it validates inputs, requires additional setup, or how it interacts with existing designs.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately adding the calculation method and purpose. No word is wasted, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 schema covers all parameters and there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and what it produces (impedance, 2-port geometry). It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role within the OpenEMS family, though it could have elaborated on the generated geometry's role in the broader simulation workflow.

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 schema already documents all six parameters and their units. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the general context of a microstrip design, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 function: designing a microstrip trace, calculating characteristic impedance via the Hammerstad formula, and generating 2-port geometry for S-parameter extraction. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Design a microstrip trace') and distinguishes well from sibling tools like openems_create_patch or openems_create_coupled_lines.

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 usage for microstrip trace design and impedance calculation, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openems_create_coupled_lines or openems_create_via. There is no exclusion or comparison to other similar transmission-line tools.

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