cst_add_field_monitor

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.