pcb_generate_em_simulation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explains the output is a standalone OpenEMS FDTD script and ties it to a specific candidate, but it omits details like return format, side effects, or whether the simulation actually runs. This is adequate but not rich.

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 action, and no waste. The second sentence provides a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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 short and mentions the prerequisite tool, but with no output schema it does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., script content vs. file path) or what next steps might be (e.g., pcb_validate_with_openems). This is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully 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%, so the schema already documents session_id and candidate_index. The description adds the relationship to pcb_extract_simulation_candidates, but does not significantly expand on the parameter meanings beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Generate a standalone OpenEMS FDTD simulation script' for a specific candidate. This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_validate_with_openems or pcb_compare_simulation.

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 explicitly says 'Use pcb_extract_simulation_candidates first to get available candidates,' providing a clear prerequisite and usage context. It does not mention when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is strong.

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