cst_get_pattern_cut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool extracts data from a 'completed' simulation (implying non-modifying), returns 'gain vs angle', and requires a farfield monitor. This gives good behavioral context, though it could explicitly state it is read-only.

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 short sentences: action, return type, prerequisite. No wasted words. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return ('gain vs angle') and the prerequisite. Given the tool's simplicity (extracting a pattern cut), the description covers all needed context for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the prerequisite requirement but does not significantly augment the parameter meanings already in the schema. For example, the schema already explains that plane='E' corresponds to phi=0. Thus, minimal added value.

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 an E-plane, H-plane, or custom radiation pattern cut from a completed CST simulation at a specific frequency. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cst_get_farfield (which likely returns full 3D) by specifying it is a 'cut', i.e., a 2D slice.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: requires a farfield monitor at the specified frequency. It implicitly suggests use for 2D pattern cuts, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for 3D patterns) or mention alternative tools.

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