cst_array_circular

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

No annotations are provided. The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies existing geometry, requires an open project, or has any side effects. It only states what it does, not how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence. It contains no filler words and directly conveys the essential action. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains the array creation, but it could specify that the operation takes place in the current CST project and that the result is a new array object. It is minimally sufficient but not fully complete.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds some context (e.g., 'replicate' for element_component, 'wavelength reference' for frequency_ghz), but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a circular antenna array, specifying the method 'by placing elements at equal angular intervals around a circle of given radius'. This uniquely identifies its purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cst_array_linear and cst_array_planar.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks prerequisites, constraints, or notes on when it's appropriate. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no comparative or contextual advice is given.

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