cst_export_result

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It omits details such as whether the operation is read-only, if it overwrites existing files, or any prerequisites (e.g., a prior simulation must exist). The description only states the action and formats.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides a use case. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple export tool with three well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not explain the scope of results (e.g., 1D Results, Farfields) beyond what the schema implies, nor does it contrast with specialized export siblings. A complete description would mention the types of results exportable.

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 all parameters and their descriptions. The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond indicating that result path and output format are involved. 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('simulation result'), and supported formats ('CSV, Touchstone, or text'). It differentiates from sibling tools like cst_export_farfield and cst_export_touchstone by being the general-purpose export tool.

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 a use case ('post-processing results in external tools like MATLAB or Python') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized export siblings (e.g., cst_export_touchstone). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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