sw_design_interference

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 clearly states the tool does not return a guaranteed configuration and explains that only generation plus verification with sw_interference_report can confirm. It also discloses that some knob effects differ from textbook intuition, adding valuable non-obvious context. It does not explicitly state read-only vs mutating, but for a design-computation tool this is adequate.

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 compact: a bold front-loaded purpose statement followed by two concise sentences covering limitations, dependencies, and additional notes. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition or filler. The structure guides the reader from 'what' to 'caveats' efficiently.

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 covers the core purpose, the non-guarantee limitation, the physical dependencies, and points to the verification tool. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. For a one-parameter design tool, this is nearly complete; a minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on parameter values or expected output format, but overall the context is sufficient.

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 one parameter (target_iot_db) with 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. The description mentions '干扰强度' (interference strength) and explains IoT depends on geometry/load/power, linking to the parameter's purpose. However, it does not explain the parameter's units, range, or how the numeric value maps to knob settings, leaving the semantic partly to the parameter name.

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 opens with a clear objective: '要构造某个干扰强度的场景，该动哪些旋钮' (which knobs to turn to construct a scenario of a certain interference strength). It also distinguishes itself from the verification sibling by explicitly stating it does not return a guaranteed configuration, making its role as a design-direction tool 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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to get direction and magnitude, then generate a batch and verify with sw_interference_report. The description explicitly mentions that IoT is determined by geometry, load, and power, which sets expectations. It stops short of listing formal when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, but the cross-reference to sw_interference_report provides a clear alternative.

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