cst_antenna_vivaldi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete side effects: it generates the substrate, the exponential taper metallisation, and the feed. What it omits is behavioural context that matters for a geometry-creating operation — required project state, whether it overwrites or adds alongside existing geometry, and whether it also sets up ports or solver settings.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the second sentence enumerating the generated artefacts rather than repeating the first. Nothing extraneous.

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 parameter-heavy creation tool with a fully documented schema but no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it builds but not the surrounding context an agent needs — prerequisites, downstream steps (simulate/evaluate), or what state the project is left in.

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%, so all four parameters carry their own definitions and defaults, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only indirect hints ('on a dielectric substrate' implies epsilon_r/substrate_height; 'exponential taper' implies taper_length_factor) without naming or explaining any parameter.

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 ('Create a Vivaldi (tapered slot) antenna on a dielectric substrate'), naming the exact antenna topology, which distinguishes it from the many antenna-template siblings such as cst_antenna_slot and cst_antenna_bowtie. It does not explicitly route away from those siblings, but the named type is unambiguous.

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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a project must be open first), and no mention of alternatives among the antenna template tools. Usage can only be inferred from the antenna-type name.

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