cst_set_periodic_boundary

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it sets X and Y boundaries to periodic and configures phase shift, but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., required solver, open project), or limitations (e.g., Z boundary unchanged). This is minimal disclosure.

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, front-loaded with core purpose, then context. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action. However, it could be more complete by noting that only X and Y are affected, or that no required parameters exist. Currently adequate but not thorough.

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 descriptions for both parameters (phase_x_deg, phase_y_deg). The description adds only 'optional phase shift' which is vague; no additional meaning like typical ranges or usage tips beyond schema. Baseline 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?

Description uses specific verb 'configure' and resource 'periodic boundary conditions', and mentions use case (unit cell simulation, FSS, metasurface). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related sibling like cst_set_boundary, which could also set periodic boundaries without phase shift.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies use for periodic boundaries with phase shift but does not state when not to use or provide alternative tool names. Given many sibling tools, this is a gap.

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