cst_configure_eigenmode_solver

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 describes the tool as configuring the solver and computing results, which implies a non-destructive setup action. However, it does not disclose prerequisites, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing settings), or any additional behavioral traits beyond the primary purpose.

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 sentences efficiently convey action and purpose. No wasted words, but could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points or separate sections for parameters and usage). Still, it is concise and front-loaded.

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 simple configuration tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the general purpose but lacks details on return values, prerequisites, or interaction with other tools. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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% (all parameters documented in the schema). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high and description adds no extra meaning.

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 configures the eigenmode solver, computes resonant frequencies and field distributions, and lists specific use cases (filter design, resonator characterization, Q-factor extraction). This distinguishes it from other solver configuration tools like cst_configure_frequency_domain_solver.

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 through examples (filter design, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, which is a gap given the many sibling solver tools.

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