cst_get_smith_chart_data

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the transformation formula (Z = Z0*(1+S11)/(1-S11)) and output (real and imaginary parts). It could mention error conditions (e.g., incomplete simulation), but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the formula adds precise detail without verbosity.

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 adequately covers the tool's function, prerequisites, and output type. It lacks detail on return structure (e.g., JSON format) but is sufficient given the parameter simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 both parameters (z0, port) well-described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 extracts Smith chart formatted impedance data from a completed CST simulation, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like cst_get_impedance and cst_impedance_smith_transform by specifying the output format and computation.

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 implies usage after simulation completion ('from a completed CST simulation') but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs. alternatives or when-not-to-use. No comparison with similar sibling tools is given, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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