cst_refine_antenna

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the use of Nelder-Mead, each iteration's steps (set parameters, run solver, export S11, evaluate), silent VBA execution to avoid history bloat, permanent application of best parameters, and connectivity requirement. Missing details on failure handling (e.g., optimization failure, state reversion) prevent a higher score.

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 at 5 sentences, each sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose) is front-loaded. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the optimization process, silent execution, permanent update, and connectivity requirement. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., optimized parameters, success status), which is needed since no output schema exists. This gap prevents a score of 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It explains the overall process but does not detail how each parameter (port, bands, parameters, max_iterations) affects the optimization, nor does it provide usage examples or constraints.

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 runs a Nelder-Mead optimization loop to tune CST design parameters toward VSWR goals across specified frequency bands. It specifies the verb ('run'), resource ('CST design parameters'), and goal ('VSWR goals'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cst_optimizer by being specialized for antenna VSWR tuning.

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 mentions the prerequisite of 'Connected mode only — requires a live CST session with a solvable project,' providing clear context on when the tool can be used. However, it does not provide guidance on when to prefer this tool over other optimizers (e.g., cst_optimizer) or when not to use it, which is a minor gap.

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