cst_get_s_parameter_phase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates that the tool extracts data (read-only) and optionally unwraps phase, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify any simulation state, require specific permissions, or have side effects. The description is adequate for a simple query but lacks explicit read-only confirmation.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose, and the second adds optional functionality and use cases. No extraneous information is present.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally mention the return format (e.g., list of frequency and phase pairs) and units (degrees or radians). The number of parameters is small and well-documented, but the output is not described. For a data extraction tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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 schema has 100% coverage of parameters, but the description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'unwrap' parameter (group delay analysis) and clarifying that 'port_in' is the excitation port and 'port_out' is the observation port. This semantic enrichment goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it extracts S-parameter phase response from a completed CST simulation, specifying the output (phase vs frequency) and optional unwrapping. This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools like cst_get_s_parameters (which returns complex S-parameters) and cst_get_group_delay (which derives group delay).

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 use cases ('group delay analysis and phase-matching designs') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives (e.g., using cst_get_s_parameters for magnitude/phase or cst_get_group_delay for group delay directly). It lacks guidance on prerequisite conditions (e.g., simulation must be completed).

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