cst_get_radiation_pattern_3d

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 discloses the tool is read-only (export) and requires a farfield monitor, but does not address error handling (e.g., missing monitor or incomplete simulation) or return data volume implications. Additional details on behavior beyond the basic action would improve transparency.

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 four sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, output, use case, and prerequisite. No wasted words, and the core action is 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?

The description explains what is returned ('gain values over the full sphere') but lacks specifics on output format (e.g., array, structure) or data size implications of resolution_deg. Given no output schema, more detail on return type is needed for full 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (frequency, coordinate, resolution_deg). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as mentioning 'spherical or Cartesian coordinates' which already appears in the enum description. 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 exports full 3D radiation pattern data at a specific frequency, specifying gain values over the full sphere in spherical or Cartesian coordinates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cst_get_farfield or cst_get_pattern_cut by emphasizing 'full 3D' and 'over the full sphere'.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires a farfield monitor at the specified frequency') and indicates usage for antenna pattern visualization and integration. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as cst_get_farfield (for farfield data) or cst_get_pattern_cut (for a single cut), which could further guide selection.

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