openems_get_design

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 implies a read operation through 'Get' but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The return behavior beyond 'full details' is left vague.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key output specifics. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter, the description adequately states the purpose and gives some indication of the returned content (dimensions and geometry). However, without an output schema, the phrase 'full details' is somewhat vague, and there is no mention of whether other design properties are included or how the response is structured.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter design_id, with the description 'ID of the design'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a specific antenna design', with specifics 'dimensions and geometry'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_designs (which likely returns summaries) and export_design, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. Overall purpose is 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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The presence of sibling tools is not leveraged to contextualize usage, leaving the agent to infer that this is for fetching a single design by ID.

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