Extract VSWR for a specified port from a completed CST simulation to assess impedance matching quality; values near 1.0 indicate good match.
Get Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR) for a port from a completed CST simulation. VSWR indicates impedance matching quality: 1.0 is perfect match, <2.0 is generally acceptable. Can also be computed from S11: VSWR = (1+|S11|)/(1-|S11|).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | Port number to extract VSWR for. |
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 must carry the behavioral burden. It explains that VSWR is derived from S11 and provides the formula and interpretation. However, it does not disclose error handling, required solver, or whether the tool can be called mid-simulation. The condition 'completed simulation' is useful but not exhaustive.
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 concise with two sentences plus a formula, all front-loaded. The first sentence states the main purpose, and subsequent sentences add relevant context about VSWR. No unnecessary text.
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 description lacks output details. It does not specify the type or format of the return value (e.g., single number vs. frequency-dependent curve), which is critical since no output schema is provided. The input is adequately described, but the missing output specification reduces completeness.
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 describes the 'port' parameter. The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema's definition, keeping the score at the baseline of 3.
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: 'Get Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR) for a port from a completed CST simulation.' It specifies the resource (VSWR) and condition (completed simulation). However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling get_* tools, missing explicit context on when to use this particular tool.
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 after a completed simulation, providing a condition, but does not offer guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to other tools or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.