cst_antenna_spiral

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states creation without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing geometry, requires a project, or what happens to unsaved changes). This lacks important behavioral context.

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 with no unnecessary words. The information is front-loaded and every part is relevant.

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?

Output schema is missing, so expected return is unclear. The description does not mention project context or post-creation state. However, for a simple antenna creation tool, it covers the essential purpose. Could benefit from noting the dependence on an existing project.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra detail beyond the schema; 'wideband' and 'discrete port feed' are general but not parameter-specific. 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 states the action ('Create a wideband Archimedean spiral antenna') and specifies key characteristics (two arms, discrete port feed at center). It distinguishes from other antenna templates 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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over others (e.g., dipole, patch). The description implies usage for wideband spiral antennas, but does not compare with alternatives or mention prerequisites like an active CST project.

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