openems_create_monopole

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The single sentence leaves several behavioral aspects undisclosed: does 'design' create a named design object? Are dimensions automatically calculated from frequency? What happens if 'name' is omitted? What is the effect on the existing design environment? These gaps are significant for a create-type tool.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It uses precise terminology and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse and quick to read.

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 low complexity (simple parameter set) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally viable for an agent to understand the tool's core function. However, it lacks side-effect information (e.g., creating a design object) and output expectations (what the design looks like after creation). With no annotations and no output schema, the description could be more complete, but it is not severely deficient.

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 each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., 'Center frequency in GHz', 'Wire radius in mm'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, such as how frequency relates to the quarter-wave length or constraints on ground plane size relative to wavelength. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter clarity.

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 action ('Design') and the resource ('a quarter-wave monopole antenna over a ground plane'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like dipole, patch, or horn. The specificity of 'quarter-wave' and 'over a ground plane' leaves no ambiguity about the antenna type.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternative antenna creation tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of scenarios (e.g., 'use for vertical polarization' or 'for a balanced antenna use dipole') or exclusions. The description only implies usage through the antenna type, which is not sufficient.

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