cst_evaluate_antenna

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it declares read-only behavior ('Does not modify the model'), discloses the side effect of exporting S-parameter data, and describes the return payload. It omits auth requirements, prerequisites (e.g. a completed simulation run), and error behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then return values. Each sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by explaining both behavior (read-only, exports data) and the exact return contents (pass/fail per band, worst VSWR, resonances). An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents port and the bands structure, giving a baseline of 3. The description only reinforces the concept of per-band targets and the VSWR/return-loss choice; it adds little semantic detail (e.g. units, relationship between vswr_target and pass/fail) beyond the schema.

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: evaluates current antenna simulation results against per-band performance goals, checking VSWR/return loss. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cst_get_vswr (raw data fetch) because it produces a pass/fail verdict, and it names the outputs (pass/fail per band, worst VSWR, resonances).

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 makes the use context clear (evaluating existing simulation results against goals, per band) and implicitly contrasts with raw data getters. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as cst_get_vswr or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

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