cst_get_impedance

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as prerequisites (simulation must be completed), limitations (one port at a time), or output format beyond 'real and imaginary impedance vs frequency'.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, each sentence serves a distinct purpose: action, output, use case. No wasted 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?

Adequate for a simple tool with full schema coverage, but missing preconditions (simulation must be completed, port must exist) and output details. With no annotations, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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 description already covers the single 'port' parameter. The description adds value by noting the output type but does not add extra semantic meaning for the parameter. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it gets input impedance (Z-parameters) for a port from a completed CST simulation. Distinct from sibling tools like cst_get_s_parameters and cst_get_vswr.

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?

Implies usage for matching network design and feed optimization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like cst_analyze_impedance or cst_impedance_smith_transform.

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