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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only generation, whether it modifies anything, what side effects occur, or what the output schema contains. The phrase 'Generate' implies creation, but there is no detail about the generated artifact's structure or any side effects. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core action ('Generate power + STOP/START control') but the cryptic 'KM1 self-hold' and lack of context make the brevity a liability. A 3 is appropriate because it is not bloated, but it does not earn a higher score for structure.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output schema contains, how the parameters map to the generated circuit, or what 'self-hold' means in this context. The sibling tools suggest a domain of CAD/circuit generation, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without opening the schema and guessing.

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 for the 8 parameters, but it does not. The description mentions 'KM1 self-hold' which maps to the contactor parameter, and 'STOP/START' maps to stop_button/start_button, but it does not explain the meaning of motor, overload, protection, include_explanations, or how the parameters interact. The defaults in the schema provide some hints, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 'Generate power + STOP/START control + KM1 self-hold.' is telegraphic and ambiguous. It names a resource (power/control circuit) and a behavior (generate), but the phrasing is cryptic ('STOP/START control', 'KM1 self-hold') and does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like generate_three_phase_power_circuit. The title is more descriptive than the description, but the description itself lacks a clear, specific verb+resource statement.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes generate_three_phase_power_circuit, which likely overlaps, but the description does not mention it or any selection criteria. The context signals show 8 parameters and no required parameters, so an agent has no hints about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'validated' which implies some validation, but does not explain side effects, return format, error handling, or what 'power side' entails. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about operational behavior.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the main action. The structure is simple and clear, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. While it earns points for conciseness, it is under-specified.

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 six parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what inputs mean, what output is expected, or any behavioral context. The output schema exists but the description does not reference it or explain how parameters affect generation.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description itself mentions no parameters at all; the six parameters (motor, title, overload, contactor, protection, include_explanations) are entirely undocumented. The agent cannot infer their semantics from the description.

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 states a clear verb ('generate') and a specific resource ('power side of a direct starter' in CADe_SIMU). It implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'generate_direct_starter_with_control' by focusing on the power side, but it does not explicitly contrast the two, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or why one might choose this over 'generate_direct_starter_with_control' or other siblings. The description is purely declarative and offers no usage context.

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

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 does add 'non-destructive' which informs the agent that this operation does not modify anything – a useful trait. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as error handling, performance, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. Given the simplicity of the operation, this level of disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the resource and action. It contains no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is concise yet precise.

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 is simple (one input, one parsing action), an output schema exists to define the return value, and the description covers the purpose and non-destructive nature. It does not mention potential prerequisites or edge cases, but given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for a correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'cad_text'. The description adds meaning by specifying it is 'CADe_SIMU text', which clarifies the expected input format beyond the bare schema. However, it does not elaborate on the exact structure, encoding, or size limits, leaving some ambiguity. Since there is only one parameter, this is a minimal but necessary clarification.

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 states a clear verb ('Parse'), a specific resource ('CADe_SIMU text'), and the output ('non-destructive component summary'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like roundtrip_cad_text (roundtrip), known_type_codes (type codes), and validation_status (validation) without ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for inspecting CADe_SIMU text, but it does not mention scenarios such as wanting type codes, validation, or generation, nor does it name any alternative tools. The context is implicit rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Return observed...') rather than a mutation, but does not mention possible errors, empty results, or access constraints. It is not misleading, but minimal.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and immediately states the exact output. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently identifies what is returned. It could mention when to prefer this over sibling tools or what 'observed' means, but the simplicity of the tool limits the need.

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 tool takes zero parametersible, so parameter semantics are not an issue. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description's reference to 'observed CADe_SIMU component type-code mappings' adds context beyond the empty 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('observed CADe_SIMU component type-code mappings'), making the tool's function identifiable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource is distinctive enough to separate it from the other listed 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context for invocation. The description simply states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only check but does not explicitly state side effects or non-mutating behavior. It also fails to describe error conditions, performance, or what happens when reconstruction fails, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It clearly states the action and the object with no wasted words. Every part 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 is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists, covering return values. The description adequately conveys the operation's nature, though it lacks usage context and prerequisites. For a check-style tool, it is reasonably complete, but certain gaps remain.

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 schema defines a single string parameter 'cad_text' with no description. The description indirectly clarifies that the text is a CADe_SIMU document, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, it barely compensates and does not elaborate on format, encoding, or constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('whether the parser can reconstruct a CADe_SIMU document exactly'), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as inspect_cad_text or validation_status, but the round-trip nature is evident from the name and description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, and does not reference any sibling tools. An agent has no information about appropriate use case differentiation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes the read-only nature apparent ('Return'), but it does not explain what 'manual validation state' means, whether prerequisites exist, or how the state is represented. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the behavioral context is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status query.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the target system and what is returned. It could be slightly richer by clarifying what 'manual validation state' refers to, but the output schema likely covers the return shape.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and this is handled appropriately.

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 ('Return') and identifies a concrete resource ('the current manual validation state' against CADe_SIMU). It is clear enough to distinguish this from the generation and inspection sibling tools, though it does not explicitly call out those distinctions.

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: an agent needing the current manual validation state would call this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with alternative tools such as inspect_cad_text or known_type_codes.

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