cst_list_antenna_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a read-only listing operation, which is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like return format or performance implications, which is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes useful detail about descriptions and use cases. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose, it omits details about the output format. Given no output schema, the description could have been more explicit about what the list contains (e.g., names, dictionaries) to fully prepare the agent. It is adequate but not 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema is already complete. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'No arguments required,' confirming the parameterless invocation, which aligns with the baseline of 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 states the tool lists all available parametric antenna templates with descriptions and typical use cases. The verb 'list' and the resource 'parametric antenna templates' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like specific antenna creation tools.

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 explicitly notes that no arguments are required, providing clear usage guidance. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with other tools, the context of sibling antenna tools implies this is for browsing before selection, making it clear when to use.

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