Generate Wiring Diagram

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-generation of protection components and output format limitations (png may not display in all clients). However, it does not mention other behaviors like diagram topology or component placement.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output content, then specific behavior. No fluff; every sentence 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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description lists what the schematic includes (batteries, chargers, protection, loads) and mentions format options. It could be more specific about output structure (e.g., labeled connections), but is sufficient for understanding.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter interplay (auto-generation condition) and summarizing the output, complementing the detailed schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('electrical wiring diagram'), and clearly states the domains (campers, boats, off-grid setups). It distinguishes itself from sibling calculation tools by focusing on diagram generation.

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 for generating visual schematics, contrasting with sibling calculate_* tools, but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives. It provides a conditional guideline (auto-generation when both batteries and loads are provided).

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