Retrieve simulated S-parameter data from a specified Input in an IC-CAP project. Returns the S data array, with an option to include imaginary components.
Get simulated data from an Input. Convenience method equivalent to get_data(msb='S').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imag | No | ||
| input_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-style convenience method, but it does not describe return format, error behavior, or whether the Input must already exist. This is minimal even for a simple getter.
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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the equivalence note is a compact, useful addition.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves important invocation details unexplained. It works as a terse hint but is not sufficient for an agent to confidently handle the input_path and imag parameters or understand the return value.
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 0%, and the description adds no explanation for input_path or imag. The mention of msb='S' refers to the underlying call but does not clarify the actual parameters. The boolean 'imag' in particular remains ambiguous.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get simulated data from an Input.' It also names the underlying method equivalence, get_data(msb='S'), which differentiates this tool from sibling helpers like input_M and input_B by the 'simulated' qualifier.
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 when to use the tool: when simulated data is needed from an Input, and it references get_data(msb='S') as the equivalent general call. However, it does not explicitly contrast with input_M/input_B or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.