Optimize a single objective while enforcing explicit inequality constraints, such as minimizing S11 subject to gain and bandwidth limits.
Single-objective optimization with explicit inequality constraints. Example: minimize S11 subject to gain > 8 dBi and bandwidth > 100 MHz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | Trust Region | |
| objective | Yes | ||
| parameters | Yes | ||
| constraints | Yes | ||
| max_evaluations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'optimization' without mentioning potential side effects, simulation requirements, time cost, or result handling. The example gives some idea of inputs but not 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the example adds clarity without waste. It could be more informative, but it is not verbose.
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 the tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It lacks any explanation of how to specify objective, constraints, or parameters, and does not describe expected results or side effects. The example is illustrative but insufficient for 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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not describe the structure of objective, constraints, parameters, or method. The example mentions 'S11', 'gain', 'bandwidth' but does not clarify they are result_path fields, and no parameter names or semantics are given.
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 the tool performs 'Single-objective optimization with explicit inequality constraints,' which is a specific verb (optimize) and resource (a single objective with constraints). The example clarifies the domain. This distinguishes it from siblings like cst_multi_objective_optimizer and cst_parameter_sweep.
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 for single-objective problems with constraints, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like cst_multi_objective_optimizer. The example provides context, but no direct comparison or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.