Plecs State Space

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

With only idempotentHint=true in annotations, the description adds useful behavioral detail: it documents default handling for missing keys and discloses the underlying RPC sequence ('set SwitchVector' then 'get Topology'). It does not cover permissions or side effects on model state, but the key operational behavior is exposed.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential input semantics and the RPC side effect. Every sentence carries useful information with no 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. For a two-parameter tool, it covers the non-obvious input semantics and internal behavior well. It could mention whether the model must be loaded or what happens if switches are omitted entirely, but it is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so strongly for 'switches' by explaining both accepted forms—list in StateSpaceOrder.Switches order or mapping keyed by component name/full path—and the default-to-0 behavior. 'model_name' is not described, but its meaning is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb ('Extract') and domain-specific resource ('A/B/C/D/I') for 'one switch combination', so an agent can immediately understand the operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings, though no sibling appears similarly named.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when state-space matrices are needed for a specific switch combination. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion guidance.

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