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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the basic action and purpose, omitting critical traits such as whether it overwrites existing ports, required prerequisites (e.g., open project, geometry existence), side effects, or return values. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by usage context. It is concise and to the point, but could benefit from a slight expansion to include behavioral details without significant bloat.

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?

Despite 9 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as prerequisites (e.g., project must be open, points must be on a surface), the effect on the simulation model, error conditions, or that port numbers must be unique. The tool's complexity demands more complete information.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 adds a discrete (lumped) port between two points for circuit-level excitation with defined impedance. It effectively distinguishes from waveguide, Floquet, and other port types by specifying 'lumped' and 'circuit-level', providing high clarity.

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 mentions the tool is 'Used for circuit-level excitation with a defined impedance,' giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives compared to sibling tools like cst_add_waveguide_port, reducing guidance somewhat.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains what field monitors capture (field distributions, far-field patterns, etc.) but does not disclose side effects like project tree modifications or any requirements like needing an open project.

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 sentences, no unnecessary information. Front-loaded with the core purpose, maximizing information density.

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?

Given no output schema and a simple 3-parameter tool, the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. It could mention what happens after addition (e.g., monitor appears in tree) but is sufficiently complete for agent usage.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra semantics (e.g., 'at a specific frequency' is already clear from schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Add' and the resource 'field monitor', specifying it is at a specific frequency. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which deal with ports, antennas, etc.

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?

It provides explicit context that monitors must be defined before running a simulation, implying when to use this tool. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions adding a fixed point but lacks details on side effects, permissions, what happens if coordinates already exist, or return values.

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 succinct sentences with no wasted words; purpose and benefit are front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a simple creation tool, but lacks details on constraints (e.g., coordinate bounds, mesh requirements) and does not specify return behavior, which might be relevant.

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%; description adds no new meaning beyond 'at specific coordinates' and coordinate units (mm) which are already in schema. The 'name' parameter's description is minimal.

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?

Description clearly states the tool adds a fixed mesh point at coordinates, and distinguishes it from siblings like cst_add_mesh_refinement by specifying it ensures a node exactly at a location for precise field sampling.

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?

Implies usage for precise field sampling and accurate field probing, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like mesh refinement, nor when not to use.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'Add a Floquet port' without disclosing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., periodic boundary needed), constraints (port number uniqueness), or return values. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, but could include more useful details without losing conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, yet description does not hint at return value or success indicators. Lacks prerequisites, post-conditions, and behavioral traits. Incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations.

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% and already describes each parameter. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., does not explain the physical significance of 'modes' or 'orientation'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as description does not reduce ambiguity.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Add a Floquet port' and lists example applications (FSS, metamaterials, phased arrays). This clearly distinguishes it from other port types like discrete, waveguide, or multipin ports, and from the advanced Floquet port settings tool (cst_set_floquet_port_advanced).

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?

Implied usage via 'for periodic structures...' but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. Does not mention alternatives or compare with sibling port tools. Guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects (e.g., modifying the project, creating an object in the 3D model), requirements (e.g., an open project), or limitations. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 two sentences, succinct and to the point, with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., an object reference, success message). The behavioral context is lacking, especially for a creation tool that modifies the project state.

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 has 100% coverage, so the description adds limited value beyond schema descriptions. It clarifies the units for value (ohms, henries, farads), which is already present in the schema, but does not add new semantic meaning for other parameters.

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 ('Add') and the resource ('lumped R, L, C, or RLC element'), and specifies the connection between two points. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'cst_schematic_create_rlc', which may cause confusion about which tool to use.

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, such as 'cst_schematic_create_rlc' or other creation tools. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions creating finer mesh but lacks details on prerequisites, destructive behavior, or interaction with other mesh settings.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded action and no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Moderate complexity with sibling mesh tools, but description does not explain interaction with other mesh settings or output. No output schema, but description suffices for basic use.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context ('around critical geometry features') but does not significantly enhance understanding 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?

Description clearly states the tool adds local mesh refinement to a specific solid, with examples of when it's used (feed points, gaps, thin layers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like global mesh settings.

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?

Provides context for when to use (around critical geometry features) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among sibling mesh tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the multimode monitoring feature but does not disclose side effects (e.g., modifies project tree), prerequisites (e.g., an open project), or any behavioral traits beyond the action itself.

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 two sentences, directly to the point, with no extraneous information. Key purpose and usage are front-loaded.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains purpose and use case but omits details about what happens after creation (e.g., port added to simulation), return value, or integration with solver. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only provides high-level context about multimodal monitoring.

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 ('Add') and resource ('waveguide port with multiple mode monitoring'), and distinguishes from the sibling 'cst_add_waveguide_port' by explicitly mentioning multimode capability.

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 specifies typical use cases ('multimode waveguides, mode converters, and structures where higher-order propagating modes need to be captured'), providing clear context but lacking explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without detailing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., a project must exist), or whether it modifies existing sources. The description lacks behavioral depth.

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 covering purpose and context. It is front-loaded and efficient, though some additional structural details (e.g., parameter grouping) could be added without bloat.

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 is a setup action. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks workflow context (e.g., how it interacts with other sources, solver requirements). Adequate but has gaps.

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% with all parameters having descriptions. The overall description adds little beyond summarizing the schema, but it does not introduce new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high coverage.

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 it adds a plane wave excitation source for scattering/RCS analysis, which distinguishes it from other port/ excitation tools among siblings. The verb 'add' and resource 'plane wave' are specific. However, it could be slightly more explicit about distinguishing from other plane wave setups.

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 for scattering/RCS analysis but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., discrete ports, waveguide ports). No when-not or alternative mentions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: VBA execution may hang if geometry rules (ground/substrate extension) are violated. It also specifies valid orientations and coordinate modes. However, it does not mention side effects like port overwriting or limits.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, followed by important usage notes (IMPORTANT), specific feed advice, and parameter details. While concise, each sentence adds value. Slightly longer but justified by complexity.

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?

Given 10 parameters (8 required) and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, key geometry constraints, coordinate modes, and orientation meanings. It does not specify return values (e.g., success confirmation), but this is acceptable without output schema. It adequately differentiates from sibling port tools.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining why 'Coordinates=Free' is essential for microstrip/coplanar ports and that orientation maps to bounding-box faces. It also relates parameters to geometry constraints, providing context not in 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 states the tool adds a waveguide port for S-parameter excitation, defining a port face. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discrete, lumped, and Floquet ports by specifying 'waveguide port' and detailing geometry considerations. The verb 'Add' and resource 'waveguide port' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: port plane at/near model edge, ground/substrate termination constraints, microstrip feed placement, and use of 'Coordinates=F ree' for non-aligned ports. It does not explicitly compare to alternative port types (e.g., discrete ports), but the context from sibling tools and the specific name imply when 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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and does not modify the model. It details the analysis steps (export S11, compute VSWR, detect resonances) and lists return values. Minor omission: does not clarify what happens if no simulation data exists or if S-parameters are unavailable.

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 four sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, actions, and outputs. It front-loads the main purpose and follows with specific computations and return values. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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, so the description compensates by listing key return items (worst/best VSWR, match quality, resonance info, design guidance). It mentions the prerequisite of a completed simulation. However, it does not describe the exact output structure, error conditions, or behavior with missing data. Minor gaps but sufficient for typical use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema; it only provides overall context. For example, sample_frequencies_ghz is described in the schema as 'Specific frequencies to report detailed impedance' and the description does not elaborate further.

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 analyzes antenna impedance match quality across frequency bands using S-parameter data. It lists specific computations (S11, VSWR, return loss, resonances) and outputs (per-band VSWR, match quality, resonance info, design recommendations). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like cst_get_impedance or cst_get_vswr which only return raw values.

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 and states it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from alternatives like cst_get_impedance or cst_matching_* tools. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites beyond 'from a completed simulation'.

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

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

No annotations exist. The description discloses the creation action but omits side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing geometry or requires subsequent simulation setup). It does not contradict any annotations since none are provided.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding. No superfluous content.

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 geometry-creation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks information about what happens to the model state or return values. It is minimally complete but could mention that the discrete port is automatically created.

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 100%. The tool description adds context about the port and arms, but the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain flare angle, arm length, and frequency adequately. The description does not introduce new semantic value 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 states the tool creates a planar bowtie antenna with two triangular arms and a discrete port. Among sibling antenna creation tools, it is distinguished by specifying 'planar bowtie' and the geometry details.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dipole, patch, or horn antennas. No prerequisites or contextual hints provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the basic creation but omits any side effects, prerequisites, or impact on existing geometry. It is minimally transparent.

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 concise sentences, no redundancy. Essential information is front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It could briefly mention the outcome (e.g., antenna object added to project), but the current content is sufficient given the sibling context.

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 description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Create), the specific resource (half-wave dipole antenna), and key details (two wire arms, discrete port). It distinguishes among sibling antenna types.

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 when a dipole antenna is needed but provides no guidance on when to avoid this tool or which alternative to use in different scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating components but does not indicate whether it modifies existing geometry, requires an open project, automatically adds ports, or has any destructive side effects. Key behavioral context is missing.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 creation tool without an output schema, the description lacks important context: coordinate system, units, effect on existing geometry, port creation, or return value. Given the tool's complexity, more detail is needed for a complete understanding.

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?

All three parameters (num_turns, ground_type, frequency_ghz) are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds overall context but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates an axial-mode helical antenna for circular polarization and lists the generated components (helix coil, ground plane, feed). This distinguishes it from other antenna types like cst_antenna_dipole or cst_antenna_spiral.

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 for circular polarization but does not explicitly state when to use a helix over alternatives like spiral antennas. No guidance on when not to use or which tool to choose instead is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what is created but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., open project), or whether it overwrites existing objects. Some behavioral context is missing.

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 a single concise sentence that covers key aspects. It could be better structured with front-loaded information, but it is not verbose.

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?

Given the complexity of antenna creation, the description is brief. It lacks information on return values, prerequisites, and error conditions. For a tool with many siblings, more context would help.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds 'target frequency and gain' which maps to frequency_ghz and gain_dbi, but does not elaborate on a and b beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as creating a pyramidal horn antenna for a target frequency and gain, listing the generated components (waveguide section, flared horn, waveguide port). This distinguishes it from other antenna types in the sibling list.

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 use when a pyramidal horn antenna is needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling antenna tools.

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

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

The description lists generated geometry components, but lacks details about port creation, excitation, material assignments, or side effects. Without annotations, the burden is higher; the description is adequate 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?

Two sentences with no fluff: first states purpose and context, second clarifies generated components. Efficient and well-structured.

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 creation tool with three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It names generated components, which is sufficient for basic usage. Could mention relationship to simulation setup, but 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 description adds limited value. It mentions generated components but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond schema defaults. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as description is not essential for parameter understanding.

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 creates an Inverted-F antenna (IFA) for mobile devices, listing generated components. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from many sibling antenna tools like dipole, patch, etc.

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 on when to use IFA vs other antenna types. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions provided. Among many sibling tools, an agent would lack decision criteria.

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

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

The description explains what is generated (wire, ground plane, feed port) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether it modifies an existing project or requires a project to be open. With no annotations, more detail on behavior would be helpful.

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 concise sentences that convey the essential purpose and components. No filler words or redundant information.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, it could mention that it adds objects to the current project or specify return values, but overall it's sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage, so parameters are already documented. The description mentions frequency, wire radius, and ground radius but adds no new information beyond the schema. It does not explain the auto-calculation for ground radius, which is implied.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a quarter-wave monopole antenna over a ground plane, specifying the vertical wire element, ground plane, and feed port. This differentiates it from other antenna tools like cst_antenna_dipole or cst_antenna_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other antenna templates. No prerequisites or context provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists generated components (substrate, ground plane, patch, feed structure, waveguide port, boundaries, field monitors), providing good context about what the tool creates. However, it does not mention potential destructive actions or permissions needed.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and including a clear list of generated elements. No superfluous information is present.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and generates. It mentions all key aspects: frequency-based dimension calculation, feed types, and generated components. However, it could detail how the tool interacts with the CST environment (e.g., creating a new model or modifying an existing one).

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions are already complete. The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond noting that patch dimensions are calculated and listing feed types. It does not enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 it creates a rectangular microstrip patch antenna with calculated dimensions for a target frequency. It specifies supported feed types and lists what components are generated, distinguishing it from other antenna tools like cst_antenna_dipole or cst_antenna_horn.

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 mentions supported feed types but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools indicate many antenna types, but the description implies usage for rectangular patch antennas without detailing selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states it creates and generates components, but lacks details on side effects, permissions required, or whether it modifies existing geometry. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a clear list of generated components. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema, but description does not mention return value or post-creation state. Also no mention of prerequisites like open project. Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add extra context about parameters beyond the schema's descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it creates a PIFA antenna, specifying the type and its components (ground plane, patch, shorting wall, feed). Distinguishes from sibling antenna 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?

Implied use for compact wireless devices, but no explicit when to use vs alternatives. With many sibling antenna templates, more guidance would help.

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

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

Describes the creation action but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if it modifies existing geometry, requires certain coordinate systems, or whether it can be called multiple times). No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden.

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 sentences, efficient and free of extraneous information. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Lacks mention of return value or success indication. For a creation tool with no output schema, description should briefly state what the tool returns (e.g., object handle). Otherwise adequate.

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 100%, so description adds limited value. However, it mentions 'auto-calculated if omitted' for slot_width_mm, which supplements the schema definition.

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 creating a slot antenna in a ground plane, with generation of ground plane, slot, and microstrip feed. It uses specific verbs and resource names, distinguishing it from other antenna types like bowtie or dipole.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when a slot antenna is preferred over a patch antenna). No prerequisites or context provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states creation without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing geometry, requires a project, or what happens to unsaved changes). This lacks important behavioral context.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The information is front-loaded and every part is relevant.

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?

Output schema is missing, so expected return is unclear. The description does not mention project context or post-creation state. However, for a simple antenna creation tool, it covers the essential purpose. Could benefit from noting the dependence on an existing project.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra detail beyond the schema; 'wideband' and 'discrete port feed' are general but not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a wideband Archimedean spiral antenna') and specifies key characteristics (two arms, discrete port feed at center). It distinguishes from other antenna templates in the sibling list.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over others (e.g., dipole, patch). The description implies usage for wideband spiral antennas, but does not compare with alternatives or mention prerequisites like an active CST project.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool generates substrate, taper, and feed, but does not specify side effects, required project state, or whether existing objects are overwritten. With no annotations, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key outputs.

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?

Given the tool creates a complex antenna structure with four parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details such as whether a port is automatically added, default material units, or return value behavior. It covers the basics but is not fully self-contained.

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 each parameter's meaning. The description adds context about exponential taper and feed but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score 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 it creates a Vivaldi antenna, specifying the key components (substrate, taper, feed). Among many sibling antenna tools, it uniquely identifies the antenna type, so the agent can distinguish it.

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 other antenna tools (e.g., when to choose Vivaldi over patch or dipole). No prerequisites or context for selection are mentioned.

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

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.

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

The description indicates the tool returns phase weights and VBA, suggesting no destructive side effects, but does not explicitly state if it modifies the CST project. Without annotations, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Single sentence with two clear clauses, front-loading the main action and output. No wasted words.

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 calculation tool, the description explains the purpose and output sufficiently. However, it lacks details like whether the VBA is returned as a string or applied directly, and no output schema is provided.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning output, but no additional parameter context 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 states the tool calculates progressive phase weights for beam steering to a specified angle, with explicit output of phase weights and VBA. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like array creation or analysis.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other array tools). The description implies it is for setting phase weights after array creation but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies existing geometry, requires an open project, or has any side effects. It only states what it does, not how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence. It contains no filler words and directly conveys the essential action. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains the array creation, but it could specify that the operation takes place in the current CST project and that the result is a new array object. It is minimally sufficient but not fully complete.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds some context (e.g., 'replicate' for element_component, 'wavelength reference' for frequency_ghz), but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a circular antenna array, specifying the method 'by placing elements at equal angular intervals around a circle of given radius'. This uniquely identifies its purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cst_array_linear and cst_array_planar.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks prerequisites, constraints, or notes on when it's appropriate. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no comparative or contextual advice is given.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It transparently states returns (AF, beamwidths, SLL, directivity) but omits behavioral details like assumptions (isotropic elements, no coupling) and computational limits. Adequate but lacking full disclosure.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second lists outputs. Extremely concise with no filler. Information is front-loaded and each sentence is purposeful. Exceptional structure.

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?

Given no output schema, description compensates by listing all return values. However, it lacks detail on output format (e.g., how AF(theta) is returned, units of beamwidths) and does not address edge cases. Still fairly complete for a simple analytic tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds context by mentioning linear/planar arrays (mapping to array_type) and returns, but does not deepen understanding of parameters beyond schema. No contradiction.

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 uses specific verb 'Compute' and resource 'array factor' for linear or planar arrays. It lists returns (AF in dB, beamwidths, SLL, directivity), clearly distinguishing from siblings like cst_array_linear (creates array) and cst_array_beam_steering (steers beam).

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?

Implies use for analytic computation ('analytically') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like full-wave simulation or other array analysis tools (e.g., cst_array_mutual_coupling). Missing guidance on limitations (e.g., assumes isotropic elements).

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

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

No annotations provided. Description states it 'analyzes' and 'returns' results, implying a read-only operation without side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or disclose any computational constraints.

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 sentences, efficiently communicating the tool's function, inputs, and outputs without any extraneous information. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the basic operation. However, it lacks details on the return format or assumptions, and could be more complete given no annotations.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: analyzing grating lobes given element spacing and scan angle. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying a unique function not covered by other array tools like beam steering or array factor calculation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for grating lobe analysis but lacks prerequisites, alternatives, or context where it should not be used.

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

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

The description discloses the method (Transform.Translate) and naming convention, but does not reveal important behaviors: whether it modifies the original element, creates a new assembly, or requires pre-existing elements. Without annotations, more detail is needed for full transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words. Efficiently conveys the core action and a key implementation detail.

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?

Covers the creation action but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., element component must exist), output, and side effects. No output schema, but given complexity, more behavioral context is expected for 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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'along a chosen axis' and naming convention, but does not elaborate on parameter formats or dependencies.

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 creates a linear antenna array by replicating an element along an axis, which distinguishes it from circular or planar array tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cst_array_circular or cst_array_planar.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like cst_array_circular or cst_array_planar. No prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., existence of an element component). The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a setup action, which is non-destructive, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing ports or runs simulation). This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and purpose. No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema with good descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the tool's setup purpose well. However, it could mention that it does not run the simulation itself, but this is a minor gap.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'multi-port' aligns with num_ports). Baseline 3 applies; no significant enrichment.

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 ('Set up a multi-port S-parameter simulation'), the object ('in CST'), and the specific purpose ('for mutual coupling extraction between array elements'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cst_array_beam_steering or cst_array_compute_factor.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many array-related siblings (e.g., cst_array_beam_steering, cst_array_compute_factor), but the description does not provide any context for choosing this tool over them.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool replicates elements using Transform.Translate, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether existing components are modified) or required permissions. Since no annotations are provided, the description partially fulfills the transparency burden.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the key purpose and method. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core concept (2D planar array, lattice types, replication via transform). It could be more explicit about the resulting model structure (e.g., a component group), but it is mostly complete given the context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying that num_x/num_y control replication and lattice selects type. This meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 it creates a 2D planar antenna array with rectangular or triangular lattice and mentions using Transform.Translate. It distinguishes itself from linear or circular array siblings, but does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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 other array creation tools like cst_array_linear or cst_array_circular. It does not mention prerequisites such as the existence of an element component or how to prepare the model.

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

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

No annotations provided; description only states purpose. Does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., modifying project state), return values, permissions, or integration steps. Significant gap for a design tool.

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 sentences, no fluff, efficiently communicates purpose and supported options. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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?

Despite clear purpose, the description lacks details on output (no output schema), how the tool integrates into a workflow (e.g., does it modify the project or return weights?), and dependencies. Incomplete for practical agent usage.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. Description reiterates supported taper types, which are already in the enum, and notes that sidelobe_level_db is for Taylor/Chebyshev (also in schema). Adds minimal extra meaning.

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?

Explicitly states 'Design amplitude taper weights for sidelobe control', which is a specific verb-resource pair. Lists supported window types, distinguishing it from sibling array tools like beam steering or factor computation.

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?

Implies usage for designing tapers, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like cst_array_beam_steering. The list of supported types helps choose a taper, but lacks exclusionary context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, error conditions (e.g., non-existent solid), or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no unnecessary words, but could be slightly expanded for clarity without harming conciseness.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters) and no output schema. The description covers the basic operation but lacks details on what happens if the material does not exist, if the solid is invalid, or any confirmation of success. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the solid format. The baseline is 3 since schema coverage is high and no additional semantics are provided.

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 (assign) and the resource (material to an existing solid in CST Studio). It also specifies the format for the solid reference as 'Component:SolidName', which distinguishes this tool from related tools like cst_create_material or cst_delete_material.

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 when you have an existing solid and want to assign a material. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new material, modifying material properties), nor does it provide conditions for use or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the result replaces solid1, which is useful, but lacks details on side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is destructive (e.g., original solids are modified). The description 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 a single sentence that is direct and concise. It contains no unnecessary words or information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core function and side effect (replaces solid1), but lacks information on return values, error conditions, or preconditions. For a straightforward operation, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds that 'solid1' is replaced, which is already implied by the schema description 'result kept here'. Thus, the description adds marginal extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Unite/add') and the resource ('two solids'), and specifies the result ('replaces solid1'). It distinguishes from sibling boolean tools by using 'add', but could be more precise about the operation being a union.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_boolean_intersect or cst_boolean_subtract. The description implies it performs a union but does not provide context for selection or exclusion.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'maintaining both material regions' but does not clarify if the operation is destructive to solid1, whether solid2 remains independently selectable, or what happens to material assignments. The term 'embedded' is ambiguous.

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 convey the essential operation without extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool with no nested objects or output schema. However, it lacks details about return values, side effects on the scene, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a boolean operation.

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% with clear parameter descriptions ('Host solid', 'Solid to insert'). The description adds slight nuance ('Insert solid2 into solid1') but does not substantially improve understanding 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 states the action ('Insert solid2 into solid1') and the result (maintaining both material regions). It distinguishes from sibling boolean operations by implying a non-destructive insertion, though it could explicitly differentiate from cst_boolean_add or cst_boolean_intersect.

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 over alternatives like cst_boolean_add, cst_boolean_intersect, or cst_boolean_subtract. The description lacks usage context, prerequisites, or scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states that solid1 is replaced and solid2 is deleted, which is good transparency for a boolean operation. Minor missing details like irreversibility or return value, but adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with key actions, and contains zero wasted words. Highly efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the operation's effect on inputs. It might benefit from mentioning return value or logging, but overall complete for a simple boolean operation.

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%, with each parameter having descriptive format info. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No need for extra semantics.

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 intersects two solids, keeps the overlapping volume, and specifies the effects on solid1 and solid2. It distinctly differentiates from sibling boolean operations like add, insert, and subtract.

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 implicitly indicates usage for intersection operations, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives is provided. However, the sibling names are distinct enough to infer the differences.

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

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

The description discloses that solid2 is deleted as a side effect, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether solid1 is modified in place or if a new object is created, nor does it discuss error conditions or prerequisites. With no annotations, the burden is on the description, and it partially meets it.

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: three short sentences, each adding distinct information (operation, effect on solid1, side effect on solid2). No wasted words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 subtract operation with a complete input schema, the description covers the core action and side effect. It could be slightly more explicit about whether the operation modifies solid1 in place, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are clear. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond restating the roles (subtract from vs. subtract). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation: subtract solid2 from solid1, and explains the effect. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling boolean operations like add, insert, or intersect, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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 (e.g., cst_boolean_add, cst_boolean_intersect). The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'release its resources' but does not specify side effects: e.g., whether unsaved changes are lost, behavior if no project is open, or if calling multiple times is safe. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the action. It is front-loaded, but could briefly mention prerequisites or consequences without being verbose.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description is the sole source. It covers the basic action but misses edge cases (e.g., error handling, state expectations like 'project must be open'). This is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use robustly.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 action ('Close the currently open CST project') and its effect ('release its resources'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cst_open_project, cst_create_project, and cst_save_project by specifying the current project and resource release.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied from the purpose (close when done with project), but no exclusions or context such as 'call after saving' or 'do not call if no project is open'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it is a configuration tool and mentions parameters, but does not disclose any side effects, whether it modifies global state, or if it is destructive. For a 'configure' action, basic behavioral expectations are not communicated.

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 concise sentences: first defines the tool, second provides application context. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 configuration tool with 4 parameters, the description covers the key differentiators (advanced, higher-order, fine control). It omits return values but no output schema exists. With sibling tools, the advanced focus is clear. Slightly lacking in behavioral context, but adequate overall.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'mode count, frequency targeting, and solver order' which map to parameters, but adds minimal interpretive value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 this is for 'Advanced eigenmode solver configuration' and lists specific applications (waveguide, cavity, filter) that require 'fine control over mode count, frequency targeting, and solver order.' While it distinguishes from a basic solver, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool 'cst_configure_eigenmode_solver' for contrast.

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 provides explicit contexts for use: 'waveguide mode analysis, cavity resonator design, and filter characterization where fine control...needed.' This implies when to prefer this advanced version over a basic solver, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as configuring the solver and computing results, which implies a non-destructive setup action. However, it does not disclose prerequisites, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing settings), or any additional behavioral traits beyond the primary purpose.

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 sentences efficiently convey action and purpose. No wasted words, but could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points or separate sections for parameters and usage). Still, it is concise and front-loaded.

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 configuration tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the general purpose but lacks details on return values, prerequisites, or interaction with other tools. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 100% (all parameters documented in the schema). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high and description adds no extra meaning.

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 configures the eigenmode solver, computes resonant frequencies and field distributions, and lists specific use cases (filter design, resonator characterization, Q-factor extraction). This distinguishes it from other solver configuration tools like cst_configure_frequency_domain_solver.

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 through examples (filter design, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, which is a gap given the many sibling solver tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Configure the frequency domain solver' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites previous settings, requires a running project, or affects other solvers). The description adds limited behavioral context beyond what the input schema already conveys.

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: two sentences that front-load the core action ('Configure the frequency domain solver') and immediately provide usage context. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 covers the tool's purpose, best use cases, and supported sweep types, which is sufficient for a configuration tool with self-describing parameters. However, it lacks details about the tool's effect (e.g., whether it validates inputs, fails silently, or requires a project to be open). Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are clear. The tool description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond stating sweep types, which are already enumerated in the schema. For a tool with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose ('Configure the frequency domain solver') and distinguishes from sibling solvers by specifying typical use cases: 'Best for narrowband problems, resonant structures, and when field distributions at specific frequencies are needed.' This directly differentiates it from time domain solver and other solver types.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use the tool ('Best for narrowband problems, resonant structures...') and mentions supported sweep types, giving context for selection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the 'best for' phrasing implicitly excludes broadband or transient problems.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the tool as a configuration interface for solver settings, which suggests it modifies solver parameters rather than performing destructive actions. However, it does not explicitly state that it modifies project state or describe side effects. The description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral transparency.

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—two sentences that cover purpose, target domain, and key features. Every word serves a purpose; no unnecessary repetition. It is front-loaded with the main action and quickly provides differentiating details.

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?

Given the rich schema and no output schema, the description effectively explains the tool's role among many solver config tools. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with the basic integral equation solver or mentioning that it sets advanced options. Overall, it is complete enough for an AI to understand the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by grouping parameters (preconditioner, MLFMM, low-frequency stabilization) and linking them to the target use case (electrically large structures), enhancing the semantic context beyond schema defaults.

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 it is an advanced configuration for the Integral Equation solver, targeting electrically large structures. It mentions specific features (preconditioner, MLFMM, low-frequency stabilization) and use cases (installed antenna, large-platform RCS). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool cst_configure_integral_equation_solver, which likely serves as the basic version.

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 provides context (electrically large structures, specific applications) but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to other solver configurations like cst_configure_frequency_domain_solver. Usage is implied rather than direct.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states to configure the solver, but does not mention whether this modifies the project state, requires prior setup, or has any side effects. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's impact.

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose 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?

For a simple configuration tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context adequately. It could mention that the tool modifies the current project's solver settings, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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% with explicit descriptions for both parameters (accuracy, max_iterations) including defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 configures the integral equation (IE) solver and provides specific use cases (antenna placement, RCS, EMC/EMI) that distinguish it from other solver configuration tools among siblings.

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 gives clear context on when to use this solver ('electrically large, open-boundary problems where volume meshing would be impractical'), implicitly advising against use for small or enclosed problems. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative solvers.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool 'configures' settings but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, prerequisites (e.g., open project, existing multilayer structure), or whether the configuration is persistent. This is insufficient for a configuration tool.

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 at 25 words and efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with key info. However, a bit more structure (e.g., separated usage context) could improve clarity without adding length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multilayer solver configuration) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites, what configuration is applied, or how to verify the setup. For a configuration tool, more context is needed.

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 provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), including defaults and enumerations. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond listing use cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool configures the solver for planar multilayer structures, listing specific applications (antenna-on-PCB, FSS, radome) and specifying the frequency domain solver. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like cst_configure_frequency_domain_solver, which is more general.

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 for planar multilayer structures but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., cst_configure_eigenmode_solver, cst_configure_time_domain_solver). No when-not-to-use or exclusions are stated.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses excitation method and outputs (S-params, fields, farfield) but does not mention prerequisites, potential issues, or side effects.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasteful words. Second sentence adds valuable behavioral context.

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?

No output schema, but description covers main outputs. Lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., open project, defined ports) and typical usage flow. Adequate for a configure tool.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage context beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states it configures the time domain solver and distinguishes it from frequency domain by describing broadband pulse excitation and single-run computation of S-parameters, fields, and farfield across the entire frequency range.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.