cst_set_boundary

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions independent boundary types per face, but does not disclose that this overrides previous settings, require an existing simulation domain, or any side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second expands on the parameter semantics. Each sentence earns its place with no extraneous information.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameter independence, but does not explain the meaning of boundary types (e.g., open vs expanded open) or any broader simulation context. No output schema exists, so return values are unaddressed. Adequate for a moderately complex tool.

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 enum values and descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description reiterates the enum values ('open, electric, magnetic, periodic') but adds the context that each face is independent. This adds modest value beyond the schema, achieving the baseline of 3.

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 'Set boundary conditions for the simulation domain' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions that each face can have an independent boundary type. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cst_set_periodic_boundary', the domain-wide scope is evident.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives (e.g., cst_set_periodic_boundary for periodic boundaries only). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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