cst_get_efficiency_breakdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed efficiency data including loss contributions, and implies a read-only operation. It does not describe error conditions but provides sufficient behavioral context for typical use.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output, and the second adds use-case context. Every sentence is informative.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: it names the outputs and use case. It could mention that the simulation must be completed, which is implied. Lacks details on output format but still fairly complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (frequency) with full schema coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'Frequency in GHz at which to extract efficiency breakdown.' Baseline score of 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: 'Get a detailed efficiency breakdown with loss budget from a completed CST simulation.' It specifies the output (radiation efficiency, total efficiency, individual loss contributions) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cst_get_efficiency by emphasizing detail and loss budget.

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 it is 'useful for identifying dominant loss mechanisms in antenna designs' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cst_get_efficiency for simpler efficiency). It implies a prerequisite (completed simulation) but does not explicitly exclude non-completed cases.

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