cst_analyze_impedance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does substantial work: it declares 'Read-only. Does not modify the model,' states the data source (exported S11 from a completed simulation), and summarizes the return payload (per-band worst/best VSWR, classification, nearest resonance, design guidance). It does not cover failure modes such as missing S11 data, an unsimulated or unconnected project, or cost of the export step.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the computation chain, then the return payload, then the read-only guarantee. Dense but each sentence adds information; minor redundancy between the operation list and the return-value list.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and for a 4-parameter analysis tool with a fully documented schema it covers purpose, inputs, and outputs adequately. It stops short of noting what happens for bands outside the simulated frequency range or when S11 is unavailable.

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 100%, with z0, port, bands, per-band vswr_target, and sample_frequencies_ghz all documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain how sample_frequencies_ghz interacts with band edges in the output or how vswr_target affects classification.

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 ('Analyze antenna impedance match quality across frequency bands using S-parameter data') and enumerates concrete operations: S11 export, VSWR/return-loss computation, resonance detection, design recommendations. This implicitly separates it from plain readers like cst_get_vswr or cst_get_smith_chart_data, but it never names a sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 'from a completed simulation' implies a prerequisite (results must already exist), which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as cst_get_vswr, cst_get_impedance, or cst_get_smith_chart_data for simpler single-frequency or raw-data needs.

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