Creates a half-wave dipole antenna at a target frequency, generating two wire arms and a discrete port at the feed gap for RF simulation.
Create a half-wave dipole antenna at a target frequency. Generates two wire arms with a discrete port at the feed gap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frequency_ghz | Yes | Design center frequency in GHz | |
| wire_radius_mm | No | Wire radius in mm (default 0.5) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the basic creation but omits any side effects, prerequisites, or impact on existing geometry. It is minimally transparent.
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 concise sentences, no redundancy. Essential information is front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.
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 creation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It could briefly mention the outcome (e.g., antenna object added to project), but the current content is sufficient given the sibling context.
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%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the action (Create), the specific resource (half-wave dipole antenna), and key details (two wire arms, discrete port). It distinguishes among sibling antenna types.
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 description implies usage when a dipole antenna is needed but provides no guidance on when to avoid this tool or which alternative to use in different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.