cst_get_bandwidth

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool calculates from S-parameter results, implying dependence on existing data, but does not explicitly mention prerequisites, error handling for missing thresholds, or state changes. It provides the core logic but lacks depth on failure modes or side effects.

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 that are direct and to the point. No redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently covers the purpose, method, and outputs without excess.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately summarizes the three return values (center frequency, bandwidth in MHz, fractional bandwidth). However, it omits the return format structure, potential error conditions, and precise dependencies on simulation results, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., threshold_db includes common values). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing the threshold concept. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Calculate impedance bandwidth' and specifies the resource 'from S-parameter results'. It explicitly describes the task of finding frequency range based on S11 or VSWR threshold and lists the returned metrics. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like cst_get_impedance or cst_get_s_parameters.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other antenna analysis tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring prior S-parameter simulation) or conditions for use. No comparison to siblings or scenarios is provided.

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