cst_add_discrete_port

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.