cst_antenna_yagi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes that the tool 'generates wire elements and a discrete port feed,' but fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., an open project), side effects, or any constraints. The behavioral information is minimal.

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 extremely concise—only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds essential detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool creates and its key elements. However, it omits any mention of return value or effect on the CST project (e.g., 'creates the antenna in the active project'), which would be helpful but is not critical.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'configurable number of directors' which mirrors the num_directors parameter, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states (e.g., frequency_ghz is described as 'Design center frequency in GHz'). No deeper semantics are added.

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 tool's function: 'Create a Yagi-Uda antenna with a reflector, driven element, and configurable number of directors.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the detail about wire elements and discrete port feed distinguishes it from sibling antenna creation tools like dipole or patch.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other antenna types. The description does not include any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context, leaving the agent to rely solely on the tool name.

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