cst_set_frequency_range_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies mutation, but there is no information about permissions, whether it overwrites an existing range, how units are handled, or what state changes result. The parenthetical adds scope clarity but not behavioral depth.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and readable, though the sparseness contributes to gaps elsewhere rather than being a structural problem itself.

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 values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is not complete enough: it omits required parameter semantics, unit behavior, and any interaction with solver configuration or execution.

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% for three parameters. The description mentions only a 'frequency range,' which loosely maps to fmin and fmax, but it gives no meaning for fmin, fmax, or unit, and does not clarify the default unit of GHz. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'Set the solver frequency range.' The parenthetical clarifies the scope as the band actually simulated. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as cst_set_solver_tool or cst_configure_*_solver_tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. It does not say whether this should be called before running a solver, how it relates to cst_set_solver_tool, or what prerequisites exist. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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