cst_export_farfield

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the prerequisite but lacks details about file overwrite behavior, side effects (e.g., creation of file), or performance impact. The format information is in the schema, so the description is minimally adequate.

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 with no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the structure is efficient.

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 description provides the prerequisite but does not explain the output (file creation success), file handling behavior (overwrite, path requirements), or how this tool fits into a workflow relative to siblings like cst_get_farfield. Adequate but incomplete.

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%; each parameter is already well-described. The tool description does not add meaning beyond repeating 'far-field radiation pattern data,' so it does not improve understanding.

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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'far-field radiation pattern data to a file', which is specific and distinct from sibling export tools (e.g., cst_export_cad, cst_export_touchstone) and getter tools (e.g., cst_get_farfield).

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires a completed simulation with far-field monitor results,' which guides when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition is helpful.

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