cst_antenna_monopole

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

The description explains what is generated (wire, ground plane, feed port) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether it modifies an existing project or requires a project to be open. With no annotations, more detail on behavior would be helpful.

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 concise sentences that convey the essential purpose and components. No filler words or redundant 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?

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, it could mention that it adds objects to the current project or specify return values, but overall it's sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage, so parameters are already documented. The description mentions frequency, wire radius, and ground radius but adds no new information beyond the schema. It does not explain the auto-calculation for ground radius, which is implied.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a quarter-wave monopole antenna over a ground plane, specifying the vertical wire element, ground plane, and feed port. This differentiates it from other antenna tools like cst_antenna_dipole or cst_antenna_patch.

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 this tool versus alternatives like other antenna templates. No prerequisites or context provided.

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