cst_matching_microstrip_impedance

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

Discloses it uses pure Python computation (no CST simulation side effects) and the specific model. However, does not describe the output format (e.g., impedance value in ohms) or any constraints. With no annotations, more detail would improve transparency.

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. First sentence covers purpose and model; second adds 'pure Python computation' as a key behavioral indicator. No wasted words.

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?

Missing information about return value (e.g., characteristic impedance in ohms) and error/range conditions. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. The tool is simple but incomplete without output details.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about the Hammerstad-Jensen model and that frequency_ghz enables dispersion correction, but this is also implicit in the schema description. Adds minimal extra meaning.

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?

Clearly states the tool calculates microstrip characteristic impedance using specific models (Hammerstad-Jensen, optional Kirschning-Jansen). Distinct from siblings like cst_analyze_impedance by highlighting pure Python computation, indicating no simulation dependency.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., simulation-based impedance extraction). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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