cst_configure_integral_equation_solver

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 merely states to configure the solver, but does not mention whether this modifies the project state, requires prior setup, or has any side effects. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's impact.

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context adequately. It could mention that the tool modifies the current project's solver settings, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% with explicit descriptions for both parameters (accuracy, max_iterations) including defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 integral equation (IE) solver and provides specific use cases (antenna placement, RCS, EMC/EMI) that distinguish it from other solver configuration tools among siblings.

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 gives clear context on when to use this solver ('electrically large, open-boundary problems where volume meshing would be impractical'), implicitly advising against use for small or enclosed problems. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative solvers.

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