cst_add_plane_wave

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.