Exports completed S-parameter simulation results to a Touchstone file in s1p, s2p, or snp format for reuse in RF and microwave analysis tools.
Export S-parameter simulation results to a Touchstone file. Requires a completed simulation with S-parameter data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Touchstone format: s1p (1-port), s2p (2-port), snp (n-port). | s2p |
| file_path | Yes | Destination file path for the Touchstone file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and a prerequisite, omitting details such as whether the tool overwrites existing files, handles errors, or returns any status indication. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
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, with only two sentences: one for purpose and one for prerequisite. No redundant words or information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention return values, error conditions, or success indication. While the core action and prerequisites are covered, the lack of error/return context leaves the agent without complete guidance for handling the operation's outcome.
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?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage (format enum with descriptions, file_path description). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating the purpose; it does not clarify parameter usage or constraints 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?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Export', the resource 'S-parameter simulation results', and the target format 'Touchstone file'. It distinguishes itself from sibling export tools like cst_export_cad, cst_export_farfield, and cst_export_result by focusing specifically on S-parameter data and Touchstone format.
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 states a prerequisite ('Requires a completed simulation with S-parameter data'), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or suggest alternatives among sibling export tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.