cst_energy_summary_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether this is a read-only operation, whether it can trigger or require a solver run, what happens if no project is open, or whether cst_file null means the current project. Only the returned quantities are hinted at.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical breakdown of result categories is useful and 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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, but for a zero-annotation, zero-schema-coverage tool the description omits prerequisites, safety profile, and parameter meaning. An agent could easily invoke it without a solved project and get nothing back with no explanation.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are two parameters. The description only implies that frequency is the evaluation point; it never explains units (the schema default 2.4 suggests GHz but does not say so) or what cst_file does versus the default null. The schema's bare anyOf string/null gives the agent nothing, so the description should have compensated and does not.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and resource (power budget and efficiencies), and names the decomposition it returns (radiated / accepted / losses). That is materially clearer than a tautology, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby result-reading siblings such as cst_read_result_tool or cst_frequency_overview_tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many cst_* result tools. Prerequisites (must a project be open, must a solver run have completed) are also absent, so the agent has to infer whether calling this is even valid.

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