cst_get_time_domain_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It describes a read-like operation but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if the simulation is not completed). The description is too brief for a tool lacking annotations.

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 highly concise at three short sentences. It front-loads the primary action and purpose, followed by the signal types and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 the moderate complexity and 100% schema coverage, the description provides a reasonable overview but misses key context: it does not explain the relationship between signal_type='transmitted' and the port_out parameter, nor does it describe the output format (beyond 'signal vs time') despite no output schema being present. It is functional but could be more 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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'time-domain port signal waveforms from a completed CST time-domain simulation'. It lists the three signal types (incident, reflected, transmitted) and provides example use cases. This level of specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on frequency-domain results like S-parameters or impedance.

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 by stating 'from a completed CST time-domain simulation', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frequency-domain result tools). It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, so the agent must infer context from the signal type and sibling names.

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