cst_get_result_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It communicates that the tool requires a 'completed CST simulation' and returns an overview, but it does not disclose whether it is read-only, if it has side effects, or any prerequisites beyond simulation completion.

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 fluff. It starts with the action and resource, then lists return types, ending with use case. Every sentence adds value.

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 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It lacks details on output format or limitations, but given the simple interface, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given zero parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving a summary of all key simulation results from completed CST simulations. It specifies the types (S-parameters, gain, efficiency, impedance) and contrasts it with siblings by emphasizing the consolidated overview approach.

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 states it is 'useful for a quick design evaluation without querying each result type individually,' which implies usage context. While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, the sibling tools provide those alternatives, making the guidance clear.

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