cst_pcb_siw_waveguide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the structure generated and formulas used but does not describe side effects, permissions required, or whether the tool modifies existing objects. The description is insufficiently transparent for a complex creation tool.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the primary action, and the second provides key technical details. It is front-loaded and uses efficient language, though it could be slightly more structured without adding length.

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 tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It lacks details on how the tool integrates with other CST processes, what it returns, or any assumptions about the simulation environment. This makes it incomplete for effective use.

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 all parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, only noting that width is center-to-center and mentioning Cassivi formulas. It does not explain parameter relationships or provide deeper context.

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 creates a Substrate Integrated Waveguide (SIW) in CST Studio, with specific details about generating copper planes and via fences. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like cst_pcb_create_trace or cst_pcb_via_fence, which serve different purposes.

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 for SIW creation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations. For a domain-specific tool, the context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison.

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