prepare_antenna_artifact_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core operations (hashing artifacts, returning a token) but does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor does it mention failure conditions.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, effectively front-loading the action and outcome.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter), and the description provides a high-level purpose, but it lacks an explanation of the parameter and preconditions. Given the existence of an output schema, the missing return details are acceptable, but the parameter gap makes it incomplete.

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?

The description does not explain the job_id parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, this leaves the agent to infer that job_id refers to the artifacts to hash, which is a significant gap.

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's function: hashing all generated artifacts and returning an approval token. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like approve_antenna_source or build_hfss_project by focusing on the hashing/preparation step.

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 phrase 'required for HFSS execution' provides clear context that this tool is a prerequisite before running HFSS. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity relative to the approval-related sibling tools.

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