cst_design_patch_only

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool operates offline and doesn't require CST, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't state whether it's read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or how results are returned, leaving significant gaps for a calculation 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The inclusion of a Turkish translation ('Sadece boyut hesabı — CST gerekmez') repeats the same information, which is redundant for an AI agent but not harmful; it still fits in one line.

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?

The description lacks an output specification (what dimensions are returned, units, etc.) and does not explain parameter semantics. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, it should describe the calculation scope and result format, making this definition incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. Parameters like epsilon_r, feed_type, height_mm, tan_delta, and frequency_ghz are left entirely to the schema's defaults and enum, which an agent may not interpret correctly without guidance.

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's purpose: 'Calculate microstrip patch dimensions only.' The verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'microstrip patch dimensions' are specific. The phrase 'offline, no CST' distinguishes it from sibling CST tools like cst_antenna_patch, which likely require a CST session, but it doesn't enumerate which dimensions (e.g., length, width) are computed.

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 the tool is for quick calculations without CST, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over cst_antenna_patch or cst_workflow_patch_antenna. The offline note gives context but no direct guidance on when not to use it.

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