analyze_waveguide

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses the input provenance and the analyzed attributes, but says nothing about whether this is read-only, what happens with a non-path target, or any failure/precondition behavior. With an output schema present, the return-shape gap is covered, but the safety/edge-case gap is not.

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 short sentences plus a compact two-item arg list, with the purpose front-loaded before the argument notes. Every element earns its place; only the lack of any note on non-path input keeps it from being exemplary.

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?

For a two-parameter analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, both inputs, and their provenance, which is nearly the full picture. The remaining gap is behavioral (read-only status, path-type precondition) rather than functional.

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 and largely does: it explains that session_id is the session returned by open_layout and target_id is the id of a path shape returned by query_region. That origin/type constraint is real added meaning beyond the bare string types in the schema.

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+resource ('Analyze a path shape as a waveguide') and enumerates the derived quantities (width, length, orientation, bend estimate), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby sibling measure_geometry, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 arg notes embed a workflow: session_id comes from open_layout and target_id must be a path shape from query_region, which implies the prerequisite call sequence and the accepted target type. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over measure_geometry or what to do if the target is not a path.

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