cst_antenna_ifa

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description lists generated geometry components, but lacks details about port creation, excitation, material assignments, or side effects. Without annotations, the burden is higher; the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with no fluff: first states purpose and context, second clarifies generated components. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a creation tool with three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It names generated components, which is sufficient for basic usage. Could mention relationship to simulation setup, but not critical.

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%, so description adds limited value. It mentions generated components but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond schema defaults. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as description is not essential for 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 tool creates an Inverted-F antenna (IFA) for mobile devices, listing generated components. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from many sibling antenna tools like dipole, patch, 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?

No guidance on when to use IFA vs other antenna types. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions provided. Among many sibling tools, an agent would lack decision criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.