cst_antenna_horn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what is created but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., open project), or whether it overwrites existing objects. Some behavioral context is missing.

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 covers key aspects. It could be better structured with front-loaded information, but it is not verbose.

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 complexity of antenna creation, the description is brief. It lacks information on return values, prerequisites, and error conditions. For a tool with many siblings, more context would help.

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 each parameter described. The description adds 'target frequency and gain' which maps to frequency_ghz and gain_dbi, but does not elaborate on a and b beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as creating a pyramidal horn antenna for a target frequency and gain, listing the generated components (waveguide section, flared horn, waveguide port). This distinguishes it from other antenna types in the sibling list.

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 use when a pyramidal horn antenna is needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling antenna tools.

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