cst_get_current_distribution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the prerequisite (monitor at frequency) and that it works on completed simulations, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like potential performance impact, data format, or error conditions.

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, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose and scope, the second adds context. No unnecessary words.

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 covers prerequisites and complementarity but lacks information about the return value (format/structure). Given no output schema, an AI agent might need to know what 'extract volume current distribution' returns (e.g., vector field data). Adequate but missing output context.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (frequency, component). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only restating the requirement for a current density monitor at the specified frequency. 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 extracts volume current distribution from a completed CST simulation at a specific frequency. It explicitly distinguishes itself from surface current extraction by mentioning 'volume' and 'inside dielectric or lossy volumes', which differentiates it from sibling cst_get_surface_current.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite ('requires a current density monitor at the specified frequency') and positions itself as complementary to surface current extraction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the surface current sibling.

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