generate_three_phase_power_circuit

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.