cst_analyze_impedance

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.