cst_get_cross_polarization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the prerequisite (farfield monitor) and supported definitions but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the monitor is missing, or any side effects. The return format and units are also omitted.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and outcome. It is concise, with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

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, the description should hint at return values. It mentions extracting cross-polarization level and XPD but not the format or structure (e.g., dict, numeric values). The prerequisite is clear, but return details are missing, which is a gap for a data extraction 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 the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds value by stating the prerequisite that frequency must correspond to an existing farfield monitor, but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 extracts cross-polarization level and XPD from a completed CST simulation. It specifies supported polarization definitions and the prerequisite of a farfield monitor. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cst_get_gain or cst_get_axial_ratio.

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 implies usage context (completed simulation, farfield monitor required) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_get_axial_ratio or cst_get_farfield. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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