openems_create_patch

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the calculation method but does not state whether the tool creates a persistent design, returns dimensions, requires an OpenEMS installation, or has side effects. The word 'design' hints at creation, but the outcome and side effects remain unclear.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy. The structure is efficient and immediately understandable.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or produces. It only says 'calculates dimensions' but not whether it saves a design, outputs a script, or generates numeric results. For a design tool with several inputs, this is incomplete and leaves the agent uncertain about the expected outcome.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description references 'frequency and substrate' which maps to frequency_ghz and substrate_er, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for any parameter, including substrate_height_mm or name.

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 explicitly states the tool designs a 'rectangular microstrip patch antenna' and uses a specific method ('transmission line model'), clearly distinguishing it from dipole, monopole, horn, and other sibling antennas. The verb 'design' and target resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 use for patch antenna design at a given frequency and substrate, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like openems_create_microstrip or mention conditions when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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