openems_export_design

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It mentions export formats and their meaning (e.g., json as full data, svg as vector graphic), which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies state, or how errors (e.g., missing design) are handled.

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 compact sentences that front-load the purpose and then succinctly list formats with brief clarifications. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description adequately covers purpose and format semantics, but it leaves out details about the return structure (e.g., whether json is returned as a string or object) and error behavior. Still, given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by defining what each format represents (full data, vector graphic, terminal art), which helps select the correct format value. The design_id parameter is already clear from the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('antenna design'), and purpose ('for visualization'). It enumerates the output formats (json, svg, ascii), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_design, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives that might also retrieve design data.

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 contexts through the stated formats and purpose, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_design or list_designs. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving selection partly to inference.

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