openems_create_via

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool models physical structures, estimates electrical parasitics, and sets up a 2-port geometry. This goes beyond the tool name and schema, informing the agent about the tool's modeling and analytical nature, which is valuable. It does not mention side effects or environment dependencies, but nothing contradicts the tool's purpose.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing unique information: purpose, modeled elements, and analysis type. No redundant phrasing, front-loaded with the primary verb and object. Ideal length for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 6 parameters, 4 required, all documented. The description explains the physical and electrical purpose, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to use it. It lacks explicit statement of output format (e.g., S-parameters), but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of a via design, the description covers the essentials effectively.

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 does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it does provide context that reinforces the meaning of parameters like dielectric_height_mm and frequency_ghz. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's already complete parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb 'Design' and a specific resource 'via transition between two PCB layers', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like antennas or microstrip. It further elaborates with modeling details (barrel, pads, feed traces) and analysis purpose (parasitic inductance/capacitance, 2-port reflection/transmission), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the primary use case: designing a via for inter-layer PCB transitions and analyzing its parasitic/transmission characteristics. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to select this tool over antenna or microstrip tools. No explicit when-not guidance, hence not a 5.

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