cst_array_compute_factor

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It transparently states returns (AF, beamwidths, SLL, directivity) but omits behavioral details like assumptions (isotropic elements, no coupling) and computational limits. Adequate but lacking full disclosure.

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: first states purpose, second lists outputs. Extremely concise with no filler. Information is front-loaded and each sentence is purposeful. Exceptional structure.

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 no output schema, description compensates by listing all return values. However, it lacks detail on output format (e.g., how AF(theta) is returned, units of beamwidths) and does not address edge cases. Still fairly complete for a simple analytic tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds context by mentioning linear/planar arrays (mapping to array_type) and returns, but does not deepen understanding of parameters beyond schema. No contradiction.

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 uses specific verb 'Compute' and resource 'array factor' for linear or planar arrays. It lists returns (AF in dB, beamwidths, SLL, directivity), clearly distinguishing from siblings like cst_array_linear (creates array) and cst_array_beam_steering (steers beam).

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?

Implies use for analytic computation ('analytically') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like full-wave simulation or other array analysis tools (e.g., cst_array_mutual_coupling). Missing guidance on limitations (e.g., assumes isotropic elements).

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