cst_multi_objective_optimizer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the weighted-sum algorithm, an evaluation cap, that it is not a Pareto search, and that it is configuration-only. However, it does not state what project state it modifies, whether previous optimizer settings are overwritten, or what the tool returns or requires to be active.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the algorithmic caveat follows, and the critical config-only behavior is stated last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 config-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and the important 'start explicitly' behavior. Missing context includes whether an active project is required, which tool should be used to start the optimization, and what happens to previously configured optimizer state.

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 60%, so the description is expected to add some parameter meaning. It adds value by calling out 'weighted goals,' 'optional constraints,' and the 'evaluation cap,' which map to goals, constraints, and max_evaluations. But the required parameters array is not described beyond its schema and the description does not explain what 'parameters' means in the optimization context.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Set up a multi-objective optimization') and names the main inputs ('weighted goals and optional constraints'). It distinguishes this from a Pareto-front search, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings such as cst_optimizer or cst_constrained_optimizer.

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 provides clear context: use this when setting up a weighted-sum multi-objective optimization, and do not expect a Pareto search. The phrase 'Configuration only; start explicitly' gives important when-not guidance, though no sibling tool is named as the alternative for starting or for constrained optimization.

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