cst_add_waveguide_port

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.