cst_antenna_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists generated components (substrate, ground plane, patch, feed structure, waveguide port, boundaries, field monitors), providing good context about what the tool creates. However, it does not mention potential destructive actions or permissions needed.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and including a clear list of generated elements. No superfluous information is present.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and generates. It mentions all key aspects: frequency-based dimension calculation, feed types, and generated components. However, it could detail how the tool interacts with the CST environment (e.g., creating a new model or modifying an existing one).

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 parameter descriptions are already complete. The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond noting that patch dimensions are calculated and listing feed types. It does not enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 creates a rectangular microstrip patch antenna with calculated dimensions for a target frequency. It specifies supported feed types and lists what components are generated, distinguishing it from other antenna tools like cst_antenna_dipole or cst_antenna_horn.

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 mentions supported feed types but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools indicate many antenna types, but the description implies usage for rectangular patch antennas without detailing selection criteria.

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