cst_get_efficiency

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions 'from a completed CST simulation,' implying a prerequisite. However, it does not disclose if the operation is read-only, any side effects, or required permissions. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but consistent with a getter tool.

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-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place. It is optimally concise for a simple tool.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It specifies the source (completed CST simulation), the frequency input, and the three output metrics. It could mention that the tool is read-only, but overall it provides adequate context for selection and invocation.

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% (one parameter with description). The description says 'at a specific frequency,' which aligns with the schema's description of 'Frequency in GHz at which to extract efficiency.' The description adds context about the returned values but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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: 'Get antenna radiation efficiency from a completed CST simulation at a specific frequency.' It specifies the verb (Get), resource (antenna radiation efficiency), and details the returned values (total efficiency, radiation efficiency, mismatch loss). This provides strong purpose clarity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_get_efficiency_breakdown. It implies usage after a completed simulation but lacks guidance on choosing between efficiency-related siblings. This is a moderate gap.

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