cst_antenna_vivaldi

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

The description discloses that the tool generates substrate, taper, and feed, but does not specify side effects, required project state, or whether existing objects are overwritten. With no annotations, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key outputs.

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 tool creates a complex antenna structure with four parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details such as whether a port is automatically added, default material units, or return value behavior. It covers the basics but is not fully self-contained.

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 the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds context about exponential taper and feed but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 Vivaldi antenna, specifying the key components (substrate, taper, feed). Among many sibling antenna tools, it uniquely identifies the antenna type, so the agent can distinguish it.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other antenna tools (e.g., when to choose Vivaldi over patch or dipole). No prerequisites or context for selection are mentioned.

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