openems_optimize_hints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the type of output (parameter sensitivities and improvement strategies) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires prior simulation, or any side effects or dependencies. This is a significant gap for an analysis 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, concise sentence that communicates the tool's core purpose and output components without unnecessary words. It earns its place entirely.

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 description is reasonably complete for a simple one-parameter tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out behavioral context such as whether the tool runs simulations, how to interpret the results, or any prerequisites. It covers the basics but does not fully equip the agent to use the tool successfully.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'design_id' with a clear description. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning, just repeating 'antenna design' without explaining how the design ID is used or what constitutes a valid ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: getting optimization suggestions for an antenna design. It specifies the resource (antenna design) and the type of output (parameter sensitivities and improvement strategies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are primarily creation, retrieval, or comparison tools.

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 when optimization suggestions are needed for an antenna design, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The intended context is inferable but not clearly articulated.

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