run_openems_stripline_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It adds one key caveat (all distances in mm regardless of document units) but omits critical details such as whether the tool modifies the document, requires a configured setup, or is long-running. The term 'configured' is vague and unexplained, 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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the main purpose and immediately follow with a critical unit caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundant text.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 13-parameter simulation tool. It fails to explain what 'configured' means, whether a document must be open, or how this differs from other impedance/analysis tools. The absence of usage guidance and parameter details makes it insufficiently complete for reliable selection and 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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only specifies that all distance parameters are in millimetres, which helps with units but does not explain the meaning of parameters like lower_dielectric_height_mm, dielectric_constant, or frequencies_hz. Most parameters rely on self-explanatory names, but the lack of detail for optional parameters prevents a higher score.

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 clearly states the tool runs an openEMS stripline analysis with a user-specified frequency sweep, using a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope (stripline analysis) distinguishes it from general simulation or impedance calculation tools, though some ambiguity remains with similar analysis 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_impedance or analyze_controlled_impedance. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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