pcb_validate_with_openems

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It discloses the main behavior—returns a standalone Python script—and the supported model types, but does not state whether the tool executes the simulation, requires an existing design, or has side effects. This is moderate transparency, not complete.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and output. Each sentence is useful: what it generates, what models it supports, and what it returns. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 params, no output schema), the description provides essential context: it returns a script, validates specific results, and supports four models. The schema fills in parameter-model mapping. The description is adequately complete, though it could mention whether the script is executed elsewhere.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the model types already in the enum and adds no extra meaning about parameter applicability or relationships.

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 'Generate' and the deliverable 'an OpenEMS FDTD simulation script', with a specific purpose of validating analytical impedance/radiation results. It also lists supported model types, distinguishing it from siblings like analytical calculator 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 phrase 'to validate analytical impedance/radiation results' explicitly indicates when to use this tool. It also lists supported model types, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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